House Bill 5043 (the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008) seems heading in the opposite direction.

Filipino women (and men as well, or principally the underprivileged Filipinos) could be made to surrender their right over their bodies (e.g., through persuasions which may lead to ligation and vasectomies), their privacy rights or their right to be let alone in the name of controlling the “burgeoning multitude” (to quote directly from the language of the proposed law).

If we agree that our people is our asset, what’s obviously needed is opportunity to work and earn income. The proof of the pudding is our valiant OFWs or those hyperbolized by patriotic Pat (pun intended).

How about passing Productive Health and Economic Development Act of 2011 making our economic elites undergo counseling (their “freedom of informed choice” being respected however) on how to be competitive, productive and vigorous entrepreneurs and providing a massive media campaign for the purpose . . . with the “active participation by and thorough consultation with concerned non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs) and communities (being made imperative) to ensure that basic policies, plans, programs and projects address the priority needs of stakeholders” (to borrow anew from HB 5043)?

But these trends are true only for developing economies. In developed economies these trends do not follow as people become more secular. The Church is replaced by other venues for socialization and worship. Protestant belief is not really the reason why many people are more entrepreneurial, but their Sola Scriptura theology requires that Protestants be literate in the Bible, which as all we know, is sometimes hard to figure out. Protestants read more than Catholics and are literate it seems. But we have to remember that much of the economic and religious statistics data used were from before Vatican II. After Vatican II, Catholics began reading their Bibles as promoted by their priests and bishops.

Now it also seems that hell is Darwinian! Belief in hell that is. People who really believe in hell tend to be more honest and cheat less and this supports the theory of why altruism evolved. Now a less corrupt society is likely to be more economically progressive. Ask all the 2010 presidentiables. That is THE MANTRA they spout.

The researchers conclude in the best secular way that mass literacy was the reason why Protestant economies grew. Literacy promotion is a consequence of Sola Scripture and was done through mass education. And there are heaps of studies supporting the idea that the longer you are in school, the less fecund you will be. Education is the best CONTRACEPTIVE and the Catholic Church won’t be miffed with that. (the Catholic journalist who is sympathetic to Opus Dei John L. Allen Jr concedes that Capitalism is the better contraceptive)  However there is a danger if…..

Some people look at the whole idea as an oversimplification. And this is shown in this PDI article on the possibility of a demographic winter in the Philippines. Population pyramids are graphical models of a natural population distribution. We cannot infer more than what the models can provide. Here is the danger when a Doctor of Sacred Theology does a Doctor of Philosophy in Economics. The Reverend Dr is doing a Bernie Villegas here and his credibility becomes questionable. As we have seen earlier, economies grow or crash due a multitude of factors, some of them may be autocorrelative (like belief in hell which is autocorrelated with a belief in heaven) some quite random but follow a Poisson probability distribution (typhoon related disasters, monsoon flooding) and some quite deterministic, like when the BSP increases interest rates, economic performance is affected.

The Reverend Dr who did the study writes that total fertility rate (TFR) would decline below replacement levels even without the Reproductive Health Bill. This is likely a consequence of a growing economy and increasing opportunities for education which makes people more mobile in their search for a way of making a living. Thus the thesis that the RH bill will drive down TFR is not correct for greater access to education for girls is a better correlate for fertility decline (although in a few societies this trend is not that clear). The only way we can raise TFR it seems (if we are to be simplistic) is to do a Taliban and ban girls from going to school! No sane Roman Catholic would ever contemplate that as a population policy. It is estimated that one year of girls’ schooling can reduce TFR by 0.26 births. When I mentioned this to waggish grad students, they laughed citing that in the Filipino context, PhD means “Pamhabangbuhay na Dalaga”! But I digress.

I support the Reverend Dr”s point in strengthening the family. The family is a social-biological unit that no doubt confers evolutionary fitness.  There seems to be no substitute for the family without ruining lives. The State cannot and neither can the Church substitute for one. We know how State run orphanages can ruin lives and we now know how the Church has ruined lives in the paedophile priest sex scandals that have made some dioceses in the US bankrupt.

The Philippine Catholic Church can threaten hell (which can drive economic growth!) or dance with the “Devil” of the RH (which promises “free, informed and non-coercive choice” but excludes abortion) and promote education in its core beliefs (which is a Constitutional right). I have always maintained that one of the biggest failures of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in the Philippines is that many Catholics are unchurched (and their number is growing) while priests and bishops dance with the devil called Politics . Well we know where that leads us. Perhaps we should be Protestant in some of the particulars and Catholic in the universals.

BTW.  The CBCP has just released a catechism on Family and Life for the coming elections. It is good that the Church is educating its flock. But how the flock will vote is something to be seen. Some conservatives I was told, would vote for Gibo simply for his flip flop on the RH bill. They won’t vote for the Ateneo trained Noynoy since he stands for the RH bill. But it seems that Reproductive Health is not really on top of voters concerns for 2010. And Noynoy knows that.

Ben Vallejo

PS: Wags have told me that the Philippines is in a hell of politicians’ making and yet our economy barely grows!

What I do not understand is why they are singling out Noynoy Aquino for having co-authored the Senate version of the RH bill. The CBCP is playing favorites. To be consistent, they should also call on the unthinking faithful to pillory ALL candidates seeking public office. Let me be of assistance to our esteemed frailes and list down these condom-loving sinners.

Sec. Gilbert Teodoro has expressed his support of “freedom of choice” in this Radio Veritas interview last May:

Well ako po ay for freedom of choice informed freedom of choice ng mga tao. Ako personally ay meron akong paniniwala that I am for freedom of choice na yan ay sang-ayon sa ating Saligang Batas na my freedom of thought ang freedom of religious na Religious Freedom na tinatawag.

In this article that came out in Malaya last July, former Health Secretary and staunch RH advocate Alberto Romualdo also lists Sec. Teodoro as among the decisive supporters of the RH bill. This same news article is on Sec. Teodoro’s website. His wife, Rep. Monica Prieto-Teodoro is also a co-author of the bill.

The same article names Senators Manny Villar, Mar Roxas and Chiz Escudero as ‘neutrals’ because they have not given unequivocal support nor have they expressed rejection of the bill. Perhaps they are afraid of the consequences of standing up to the frailes? Sen. Escudero is a particular disappointment because his father Rep. Salvador Escudero is co-author of the HB5043. And so is Sen. Villar since his wife Rep. Cynthia Villar is a co-author and vocal RH advocate.

Vice-president Noli de Castro has been mum on RH, as he has been on anything else really.

In the Countdown 2010 Presidentiables Forum held recently, Mayor Jejomar Binay and ex-President Joseph Estrada both categorically expressed support for the bill.

Sen. Loren Legarda is co-author of the senate version of the bill.

The panel debates should have started today but has been postponed til Tuesday next week. As has been the trend the past few weeks, the House adjourned early for lack of quorum. Forgive me then for coming to the conclusion that the postponement could not have been because our hard-working members of the lower house are up to their ears drowning in work. So what is the cause of delay? To give the CBCP 5 more days to pummel Noynoy on this issue?

I think Sen. Benigno Aquino III should be awarded laurels for remaining steadfast to his commitment to women and to the Filipino family. He has been a long-time advocate of RH, even when he was in the lower house. Unlike his mother, he owes no debt to La Iglesia Katolika and her sainted clergy. Balls you say? Step out of his parents’ shadow you say? Be his own man you say?

9 out of 10 Filipinos support the RH bill. I am calling on all members of Congress to heed the will of the people.

And to our religious hierarchy – a shame. You would doom your flock to Bayani Fernando, the only presidentiable who blindly follows your call.

I find this explanation laughable especially during these times when the only countries in Asia that are posting positive GDP growth rates are the countries with huge populations, and therefore have sizable domestic markets which partly immunize them from collapsing export markets.

Villegas implies that huge populations are what cushioned countries such as China and India from the 2008 collapse of financial markets. He attributes continued GDP growth to large domestic markets.

This claim is problematic on two accounts.

First, China was able to escape the worst of the financial crisis because of its over one trillion dollar reserve – a result of its export surplus to major economies since it joined the global trade regime in 2000. The Chinese financial system also has limited exposure to global financial markets – a policy initiative of the one-party state that has little changed for the last decade. What the Chinese save in export earnings, they funnel back in domestic banks to pursue its national developmental projects. It is wrong, therefore, to attribute China’s survival to the size of its population.

Second, more people does not necessarily mean more consumers. While there is a nascent middle class in major urban cities, the hinterland peasants still far outnumber the estimated 100 to 350 million of them living along the east coast. Also, domestic markets account for only 20 percent of the Chinese GDP.

The Philippines has a shrinking middle class, down to 19.1 percent as of 2006. The NSCB defines middle-income families as among those earning at least P250,000. Villegas might argue that consumer spending in the country is fueled by OFW money anyway, so a small domestic consumer base should not be an issue. Does this mean we should not be worried about our population growth rate?

It takes over two decades for a Filipino to become a viable domestic income earner, perhaps a bit longer to become a “transnational income earner” to be exported to labor markets in North America, Europe and the Middle East. In those two decades, this Filipino will have to be fed, clothed, housed and educated – using domestic resources. We invest in our people to become fully productive overseas then to send money back to the Philippines. Whether this model is sustainable depends on two factors – an ever-expanding labor markets overseas and hospitable migrant work policies of these receiving countries. These factors, the Philippines has ZERO control over. And yet we have been banking on this model for the last decade or so.

Should we worry about population growth? Should the Philippines continue down the path of being the world’s breeder of cheap migrant labor?

Villegas then makes a claim that the world’s emerging superpowers all have populations more than fifty million.

If one takes a look at the so-called emerging markets that are forecasted to dominate the global economy in the next 20 years, they have a common denominator: they all have at least 50 million people, i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Korea, Indonesia, Pakistan, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. Large and young populations have two advantages: they provide low-labor costs and attractive consumer markets.

I do not know what Villegas has been reading lately, but the list of projected economic powerhouses, dubbed B.R.I.C.S, only includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Maybe he was confused with South Korea – which officially joined the rich country club (OECD) back in the 1990s. Slyly, he includes the Philippines in this so-called dominators of the global economy in twenty years. I do not know what his indicators are in making this projection.

Among the countries he mentioned a population of over fifty million perhaps is the only thing they have in common. They are in various stages of economic development, with different domestic economy features. BRICS are all rapidly industrializing countries – exporting low to mid-value export goods and commodities overseas. The Philippines, as we have established, exports people.

A large and young people is only desirable if it is a healthy, educated and trained population. Foreign investors will forgo “quantity” over “quality.” The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, a survey of the world’s biggest companies, does not usually include “cheap labor” among desirable factors for a profitable investment climate. And besides, as cheap labor goes – low-skilled labor in the Philippines is still more expensive than their Chinese equivalent. Filipinas will have to pop out a billion more babies to compete!

Next week the Reproductive Health bill will be up for debate in the House of Representatives. Advocates hope to have a vote finally called before the end of the session in October.

This is probably Villegas’ last ditch effort to mount a credible defense against the population and development aspect of this legislation. Sadly, his position is indefensible.

God, if you are there, please save Africa and the rest of the world from annihilation at the hands of Your hard-hearted Pope!

In his first  public statement on HIV/AIDS and contraception since taking office, Pope Benedict XVI recently told African bishops that “The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only fail-safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids.”   The Pope categorically rejected the use of condoms, even to prevent infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, because he says they contribute to a “breakdown in sexual morality”.

“Even amid the greatest suffering, the Christian message always brings hope,” the pope said.

But with U.N. estimates of 10% or 90 million people in Africa becoming infected with the deadly virus by 2025, unless a massive prevention and education program is undertaken,  Africa cannot hope to prevent a total breakdown of  African societies as limited resources are stretched to the limit by the epidemic, and break.

Instead of seeing this looming catastrophe, the Roman Pontiff has hardened his dogmatic heart and has instead been busy  rationalizing the excommunication of schismatic Holocaust-denying  Catholic Bishops.  I was afraid that Cardinal Ratzinger, former head of the Roman Curia, would turn out like this as Pope.  Despite acknowledging the worldwide furor over his decision, Benedict did not apologize  or reverse the reinstatement of rabidly and openly anti-Semitic, even Neo-Nazi-like bishops.

Benedict also gives encouragement and support for the reactionary Philippine Catholic Church’s own insane stand on reproductive health measures, contraception and life-saving pieces of latex.

Is there any doubt that the virus of dogmatic religion is the most lethal  brain infection ever created by Man?

This post is NOT about the existence of God, but the existence of Evil. In Rome.

Tayong lahat ay nalalayong itaguyod ang buhay. Ang dapat nating tanungin sa ating mga sarili – anong klaseng buhay ang nais natin habang tayo’y nasa mundong ibabaw? Anong klaseng kinabukasan ang ating ipamamana sa mga kabataang aani ng ngayon?

Ang Reproductive Health bill ay di dagliang solusyon sa lahat ng suliranin ng ating lipunan, ngunit ito’y isang simula. Tinutugunan nito ang ang payak at ang pinakamahalaga. Higit sa lahat, tinutugunan nito ang pangangailangan ng kapos.

Ang Katotohanang ng Pag-aanak

Ang bawat bata ay may karapatang ipanganak sa isang malusog na ina. Ngunit araw-araw mahigit sa tatlumpung sanggol ay iniluluwal na ulila. Ang panganganak ay ang pangunahing dahilan ng pagkamatay ng mga babaeng nasa edad ng pag-aanak. Ayon sa Department of health, mahigit sa kalahati ng maternal deaths ay hindi nai-rerehistro. Madali sanang agapan ang ganitong pagkamatay, ngunit ‘di ito mabisang natutugunan dahil sa pagpapabaya ng ating lipunan.

Kayraming mga kababaihan, lalo na sa hanay ng mga walang kakayanan at kapos, ang nanganganak ng walang tulong ng skilled birth attendants tulad ng doktor o midwife. Halos lahat nga mga babae sa pinakamahirap na strata ng Pilipinas ay nagpahayag ng kawalang access sa reproductive health care. Mahigit lamang sa dalawampung porsiyento sa mga mahihirap na komunidad ang nanganganak ng may skilled birth attendant.

Makailang beses na’ng argumento ng simbahan at ng mga kaparian na ang family planning commodities – tulad ng pills at codonm – ay malayang mabibili sa merkado, kung kaya’t ‘di na kailangan pa ng Reproductive Health policy. Ngunit alam nating lahat na ang merkado ay para lamang sa may kakayanang bumili. Ang isang inang kumikita lamang ng singkwenta pesos kada araw ay pipiling bumili ng pagkain – hindi pills o condom. Ano nga naman ang mabilili ng singkwenta pesos?

Mahigit kalahati sa mga babaeng edad 15 hanggang 49 ay gumagamit ng kahit anong klaseng contraceptive. 62 porsiyento ng mga babaeng kasal sa hanay ng pinakamahihirap na Pilipino ay ‘di gumagit ng kahit anong family planning method.

Tayong mga Pilipinong may kakayanan ay ‘di namumuhay ng isang kahig, isang tuka. Ang tangi lamang nating mai-aambag ay ang pagkilala sa kundisyon ng nakararami.

Sex at mga Kabataan

Gustohin man natin o hindi, ang mga kabataan ay mapusok at mapag-eksperimento. Maraming paraan upang sila’y magkamalay tungkol sa pagtatalik – sa mga kaibigan, mass media at internet. Ayon sa Youth Adolescent Fertility Survey ng UP Population Institute, 20 porsyiento nga mga kabataang edad 15 hanggang 24 ay nakipagtalik na. 40 porsyiento ng pagtatalik ay naganap ng walang contraceptive. Mahigit sa kalahati ng mga kabataang babae ay ‘di gumamit ng kahit anong proteksyon.

‘Di tulad ng sinasabi ng mga malisyoso, ang sexuality education ay ‘di naglalayong ituro sa mga kabataan ang kama sutra. Para sa mga pinakabata, ituturo ang pag-iwas sa sexual predation at abuso. Sa mga nagdadalaga at nagbibinata, ipaliliwanag ang mga pagbabagong emosyonal at pisikal na nagaganap sa kanilang katawan.

Sa ibang lipunan may mga pag-aaral na nagpapatunay na ang sexuality education ay may kakayanang magpaliban ng unang pagkakataon ng pagtatalik sa mga kabataan. Dahil nalalaman nila ang mga responsibilidad na kaakibat ng pagtatalik, pinipili nilang huwag munang mag-sex.

Ang mga magulang sana ang dapat na magturo ng ganitong bagay sa kanilang mga anak. Sa katotohanan nga lamang, mas komportable ang mga teen-ager na pag-usapan ang sex sa kanilang mga kaibigan. Sa isang structured at pormal na environment tulad ng eskwelahan, maaring ituro at talakayin ang sekswalidad kaakibat ng values formation na maglilinang ng pagiging responsableng magulang.

Aborsyon

Ang isang sanggol ay tunay namang kayamanan. Walang tao, higit na isang ina, ang tahasang kikitil ng buhay sa kanyang sinapupunan. Ngunit ang napakapait na desisyong ito ay hinaharap ng halos kalahating milyong mga Pilipina kada taon. Ang estimate na ito ay konserbatibo ‘pagkat ang aborsyon ay ilegal at maraming insidente ng paggawa nito ay ‘di narerehistro.

‘Di malayong mayoridad ng mga babaeng nagpapa-aborsyo ay mahirap, kasal at mga Katoliko. 68 porsiyento ay kasal. 43 porsiyento ay may tatlong anak na, 87 porsiyento ay Katoliko.

Ang isang Reproductive Health policy ay naglalayong pababain ang insidente ng aborsyon sa Pilipinas. Ang family planning ay isang mabisang paraan upang ang bawat mag-asawa ay magkaroon ng kakayanang mag-plano ng pamilya ayon sa kanilang makakaya. Maraming kababaihan ang gustong magkaroon lamang ng 2 o 3 anak, ngunit sa huli ay nagkakaroon ng 4 o 6. 15.7 porsiyento ng mga babaeng kasal ay nagsabing nais nilang mag-espasyo o tumigil na sa pag-aanak, ngunit ‘di nila maabot ang kanilang plano ‘pagkat wala silang kaalaman o pamamaraang mag-access nga family planning services.

Ang bawat bata ay may karapatang lumaki ng may dignidad. Kaninong sala itutuon ang mga batang naglalaro sa kalye o nagtatrabo ng parang matatanda, na dapat sana’y sila’y naglalaro at nag-aaral? Ang kanilang mga magulang? Ang Estado? Ang lipunan?

Populasyon at Kahirapan

May mga pagsusuring naglalahad na tumataas ang insidente ng kahirapan habang lumalaki ang pamilya. Ang insidente ng kahirapan ay 10 porsiyento sa mga pamilyang may isang anak. Tumataas ito hanggang 57 porsiyento para sa mga pamilyang may siyam o sampung anak.

Ang pagkakaroon ng maraming anak na higit sa kakayanan ng mga magulang ay direktang nakaka-apekto sa paggastos sa kalusugan at edukasyon. Dahil dito lalong mahirap na basagin ang cycle ng kahirapan sa Pilipinas.

Paulit-ulit man nating banggiting ang mga statistics, marapat na ibukas laman natin ang ating mga mata upang makita ang katotohanan. Ano ang kakapusan sa mga classroom, mga libro at lapis? Ilang kabataan ang nakapagtatapos ng Grade 6?

Ang edukasyon at kalugusan ay mga yamang maaring makapagpantay sa lawak ng pagitan ng mayayaman at mahihirap sa anumang lipunan. Edukasyon at kalusugan. ‘Di man tayo piliin ng tadhanang ipanganak sa isang marangyang pamilya, ating responsibilidad bilang isang sambayanang makatarungan ang pagbibigay ng ganitong payak ngunit mahalagang na mga elemento sa bawa’t Pilipino. Edukasyon at kalusugan.

Totoong hindi isang malaking populasyon ang dahilan ng kahirapan. Ilang beses na sinasabi ng simbahan at sampu ng mga kaparian na ang yamang tao ay napakahalaga. Sinasabi nilang – mas marami, mas mabuti.

Anong klaseng mga kinabukasan ang inihahain natin sa mga kabataan? Ngayong buwan libo-libo ang magtatapos at lalahok sa pwersang manggagawa. Ano ang kanilang mga oportunidad gayong palagiang napakataas ng unemployment rate?

Sa mga nakaraang taon ang labor supply ay mas mabilis na lumalaki sa labor demand (2.3 % at 1.7 % ayon sa ADB). Hindi sapat na lumalawig ang ekonomiya upang makapag-bigay ng kabuhayan sa mga nagtatapos at lumalahok sa pwersang manggagawa. Ang ‘Development’ ay kumakalap ng isang mabisang kombinasyon ng mga resources. Ang simpleng ‘karamihan’ ng isang sangkap – tulad ng labor – ay ‘di automatikong magbubunga ng kaunlaran.

Ang mabilis na pagtaas ng paglaki ng populasyon ay naka-aapekto sa pag-unlad sa tatlong pamamaraan. Una, hindi nakapag-iipon ang mga Pilipino pagkat nagagastos ang lahat ng kanilang kita. Sa kalahatan, mahirap kumalap ang buong lipunan ng kapital. Ikatlo, ito ay nagpapatuloy ng isang kahig isang tukang pamumuhay.

Malaki man ang populasyon ng nasa edad upang maging produktibo, napakataas rin ng ating ‘Dependency Ratio.’ Sa bawat 10 nagtatrabaho, 7.2 ay mga dependent – mga lolo’t lola, mga malilit na anak. Gayong may 51 milyon na Pilipinong nasa edad na produktibo (15-64 gulang). 4.1 milyon ay walang trabaho at 10 milyon ay undermployed ayon sa NSO Labor Force Survey. Sa katotohanan ngayon ay ang bawat isang produktibong tao ay sumusuporta ng dalawa o tatlong dependents.

‘Di man tayo magpaka-dalubhasa sa kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng maging tao at ang mabuhay sa mundong ibabaw, ‘di naman siguro layunin ng Panginoon na tayo’y makasya na lamang sa isang kahig, isang tuka.

Ang isang Reproductive Health policy ay ‘di sasagot sa bawat suliranin ng ating lipunan, ngunit ito’y pumapailalim sa bawat aspeto ng ating buhay. Ang pamilya ang pinakamahalagang elemento ng isang lipunan. Upang bigyan ng pagkakataong mabuhay na may dignidad ang bawat pamilya, marapat na bigyan natin sila ng layang magplano ng pamilya ukol sa kanilang paniniwala.

Sa “Liham sa mga Kababaihan ng Malolos” sinabi ni Jose Rizal na ang mga kababaihan ang unang naglilinang sa kamalayan ng sambayanan. Siya ay ang unang guro, unang tagpangalaga, unang nagkakalinga. Patatagin natin s’ya at patatataganin natin ang lahat.

Upang mabigyan ang bawat bata ng pagkakataon simula ng kaniyang pagkaluwal sa daigdig, ibigay natin ang mga kondisyong magkakalinga sa kanyang pag-unlad bilang tao.

Sa pangkalahatan, bilang isang sambayanang demokratiko at makatarungan, aani tayo ng henerasyon ng mga Pilipinong handang magsilbi sa kapwa, sa lipunan at sa Panginoon.

There is a third whammy as well: the possible effect penniless idle returning OFW’s might have on the already galloping birthrate of the Philippines.

Something called the paternity uncertainty principle — i.e., females are certain of their maternal relationship with their offspring but males are not — comes into play. As such males evolved to instinctively make use of two classes of measures to reduce their risk of investing in genetically-unrelated offspring: (a) use of proxies to ascertain probability of paternity (such as physical resemblance) and (b) use of measures to enhance competitiveness of one’s ability to inseminate.

The latter (b) is the more interesting concept:

Baker and Bellis studied couples in committed, sexual relationships and reported that, consistent with sperm-competition theory, when copulating with their partner men inseminate more sperm when the risk of sperm competition is high. Specifically, controlling for the time since last ejaculation, they documented a large positive correlation between the number of sperm ejaculated and the proportion of time a couple has spent apart since their last copulation.

[my boldface]

Thus further research…

[...] documented a positive relationship between the proportion of time a couple has spent apart since their last copulation and, for example, men’s ratings of their partner’s sexual attractiveness and men’s ratings of their interest in copulating with their partner.

The probability of female infidelity is greatest over a prolonged absence of her primary partner. Therefore the male partner usually returns literally with a bang on the first night after a long absence. ;) The evolutionary objective underpinning this inclination is (to cite the clinical term) semen displacement using an arsenal of enhanced ejaculate volumes, more vigorous intercourse, and heightened attraction in case remnant competing seeds from a possible sexual transgression on the female’s part during his absence remains in the system over the first 48 or so hours of return.

Ain’t nature beautiful?

To be fair, this syndrome is relevant even among employed OFWs who return to the nest every several months or so for some boom-boom R&R. A really potent bang every six- to eight-months or so, to say the least translates to, say, five kids over a six- to eight-year OFW stint.

Indeed, katas ng Saudi apparently does not apply only to jeepneys (the entrepeneurial venture of choice of Da Pinoy).

But then we now find ourselves at the start of what is likely going to be a deep recession faced with a potential swell in demand for prime real estate along Da Riles and an army of laid off workers coming out of the airport, their Semen Displacement Arsenal locked and loaded.

Talk about welcoming the New Year with a bang — to the tune of 500,000 enemployed OFWs by conservative estimates! The ocho-ocho solutions I proposed earlier, admittedly, may not be too effective under such circumstances. We may need to consider the following solutions to avert a possible mini baby-boom already brewing in our already overpopulated country as I write this:

:D Distribution of free condoms at various international airports all over the country to returning OFWs.

:D A moratorium on train departures from Paco Station past 12 midnight so as not to awaken sleeping households along Da Riles.

:D Go tell our venerable men-in-robes what we really think about their holy pontifications about the matter.

Then again, what the hell.

Bahala na. ;)

============
Join us on Facebook!

It challenges reflection that a lawyer, instead of a doctor, is the chief architect and single strong advocate of House Bill 5043 which actually consolidated into one, House Bills 17, 812, 2753 and 3920 in this 14th Congress. The simple idea of gender equality easily permits room for women proponents themselves, in either House or Senate, to be the mouthpiece as well as the voice behind such a now controversial bill that is met with so much opposition from not few traditional groups – not Rep. Edcel Lagman – unless otherwise no other proponent from the female species is available. Women issues are the exclusive domain of women, or so I thought?

Offhand, HB 5043 pretentiously placed reproductive health, responsible parenthood, and population development under its policy framework. Good. But, let us be reminded that a single legislative measure such as HB 5043 that carries more than three subject matters is actually violative of “overloading”. Bottomline, that is the way professors of law teaching on “How a Bill becomes a Law” always teach us. Where will HB 5043 all transport us to? Such a would-be law that prohibits and in fact penalizes any health care service provider who refuses to perform medically-safe reproductive health care services in the absence of spousal consent or authorization is revolting. What is this?

Boldly, the bill claims the policy is anchored on the rationale of sustainable development with a manageable population of healthy, educated and productive citizens. Truly, this carries some kind of racist bias against those otherwise unhealthy, uneducated, and unproductive in our realpolitik. Is this Hitler’s idea of a “super race”? What about China with approximately two billion population that has managed equitably well without compromising its position as the next economic superpower? I say as anecdotal the sweet claim of a population management stratagem of a two-child policy. The proponent himself has more than two of his own, doesn’t he?

If we have higher population than any developing country in the world, it is a blessing especially so that all developing countries, no exception, are now suffering from a graying population and are now in search of manpower to replace their aging manpower base. Where then do they have to import human capital? Where will they recruit the Industrial Reserve Army but from the Philippines? Have we as much as forget that OFW remittances of our fellow Filipinos buoys up an otherwise fledging economy? The next generation of overseas workers to fill the great demand of manpower from the global market has to be born now – beyond the two-child limit. This kind of thinking might run counter to the bill’s claim that manpower is the principal asset of every country.

If there will be a universal access to quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information, this means that a whole range of options is at anybody’s disposal. Studies have already validated that reproductive health care as practiced in the more developed societies already negative impacted upon the home, family life, career, social milieu, culture, and society as a whole. It has been shown that women committed suicides. It has been shown that the incidence of broken families rose. It has been shown that children from broken homes are what triggered dramatic rise in the crime statistical chart. As divorces multiply, broken homes multiply just as well. Medically, a lot of these so-called contraceptive pills are not safe and just how many pills are manufactured in a minute and at what cost?

Shotgun approach has been the design of HB 5043 – it will kill all birds that took flight – adults, adolescents, children – without distinction. It sounds crazy for the bill to claim that women seeking care from post-abortion complications shall be treated and consoled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner without being guilty of doing abortion in the unseen process. This kind of intended access opens the door wide to a lot of other possibilities in need of reproductive health care attention, not to be excluded, would be abortion itself at its initial stage. To give people the freedom to decide, if, when and how often to have a satisfying and safe sex life, as claimed, tears at the very moral fabric of our social existence.

What then constitute as reproductive health-related problems that the bill aims to prevent and avoid, reason for a full range of options? Openly enough, the bill espouses making available all methods and techniques to prevent unwanted, unplanned, and mistimed pregnancies but what exactly are these? Pregnancies – whether or not wanted, planned, or timed – are pregnancies. Any act or means to be sought to prevent it should be called as what? It would not be abortion, would it? Whoever invented these labels without any scientific basis ought to be a murderer?

It is noticeable how a proviso has been carried that would, in effect, expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance Program or NHIP especially to many poor and marginalized women to include a full range of reproductive health care services and supplies as health insurance benefits. Will money be inserted in another else’s pocket? How much in State subsidies will be infused into a supposed-to-be existing program or agency, again and again?

Rider or not to a proposed bill, the creation of a Board of Commissioners of POPCOM (or Population Commission) of 14 heads of agencies plus 3 representatives from the private sector ought to be the subject matter of another and separate bill yet to be proposed and filed in Congress considering that when a board meets, honoraria are given. At the very least, their appointment by the President for a term of 3 years means that some people get to be employed, first and second, time. Even the Department of Agriculture and the Commission on Higher Education will be members thereof make for Ripleys.

Again, more midwives or skilled attendants need to be employed in every municipality or city based on some ideal ratio. More qualified personnel in each city or province will have to be employed in hospitals to provide emergency obstetric care, again, based on ideal ratio of say one such hospital for every 500,000 population. How good indeed that indigent patients will be covered by PhilHealth insurance benefits for hospital services related to family planning? Again, are we putting money in another else’s pocket?

Another apparent caveat of the proposed HB 5043 is the fact that every congressional district will be provided a van for Mobile Health Care Service from their PDAF but it is not stated too clear if this means an additional budget to their PDAF. A mandatory health reproductive education will be required of those from Grade V to Fourth Year High School. Will parents agree to this law? Inserting 10% additional increase in the honoraria of barangay health workers is truly an inducement. Will not barangay captains or mayors agree to this scheme and its pecuniary benefits?

From where I stand, readers of HB 5043 can read with caution the corpus of purely statistical data in the explanatory note of the bill from which it based its goal to erect a law that is always met with extreme opposition from those thought to become its beneficiaries as well as to its intended victims. In the end, adults, adolescents, and children that the bill purports to help will be the true victims of a law that is easy enough to approve given that it has “strings attached” to it. Not remotely, some laws really self-destruct as soon as they get implemented and this proposed measure shall be one of them. Since coins will be dropped in the vendo machine, many legislators might tend to stamp their own approval of HB 5043, irrespective of dictates of conscience – and so be it.

(Email to: nielsky_2003@yahoo.com or text to: 09164985265)

Great historical events are also made when people and institutions in power, perceived to have failed society, have been overthrown, thereby allowing new institutions and ideas to be developed and instituted by the succeeding power.

Powers of ordinary men, like you and me, (not to speak of the shirtless, shoeless and toothless) are often circumscribed. For example, we in FV would like to believe that we have purposeful ideas and intentions for the Philippines, but we can only carry our purposes as far as our relative position in the hierarchy of powers can take us, unless of course we succeed in creating movements to match the strength of the powers that be.

So, in the Philippines, there are men and women, being in command of powerful institutions of modern society, whose decisions and non-decisions have immense consequences to our society. We do know that these special people own the financial establishments, control major corporations and organizations and for the most part “capture” the machinery of the state or, at the very least, have the ready ear of those who occupy positions of direct power.

There are thus dreadful consequences if our economic elites, the taipans or the old oligarchs for example, are risk averse, content as they seem with operating public utilities with captured markets, or mega malls and real estate ventures sustained by OWF remittances. Their lack of vigorous entrepreneurship translates into our economic engines not being propelled to create greater wealth and employment opportunities to provide decent incomes for a growing population of ordinary or less than ordinary people.

Today, as one of such consequences, we are witnessing that even well-meaning Filipinos – academicians, economists and scientists – are all sold to the proposition that much of our human resources are or will be “damaged goods,” or liabilities rather than assets, so that if the ones who made it to the light of day are not yet recruited by insurrectionary forces or not lucky enough to opt out as OWFs, they are offhandedly deemed as dregs of our society whose liberties are taken for granted by subjecting them, for instance, to “reproductive health” measures we won’t dare to prescribe via government fiat for those we hold in high esteem.

The National Academy of Science and Technology endorsing the Reproductive Health Bill states: “A large population with large resources is a state of affairs we probably aspire for but which so far has eluded us.” Shouldn’t scientists (as well as academicians and economists) be as passionate initiating or supporting measures which address the problems brought by a large population as those which confront the problems of want of resources because of failure to act on the part of those whose decisions have great societal consequences?