PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF SEN. VICENTE C. SOTTO III
Turno en Contra
SB 2865

Note: This is based on Senate record as delivered by Senator Vicente C. Sotto III during his Turno en Contra speech against RH Bill on August 15, 2012 (PART 2)

Mr. President, this is the measure on Reproductive Health and Population Development. The parliamentary status of the measure is that we are still in the period of general debate.

Last Monday, I started my turno en contra speech. May I be allowed to continue with the turno en contra, Mr. President.

The President Pro Tempore. Please proceed.

Senator Sotto. Thank you.

Mr. President, my esteemed colleagues, before I proceed, I would like to take exception to the statements made by Dr. Cabral, former Secretary of Health during the time of Gloria Arroyo, and to a certain extent by Congresswoman Garin, in reaction to my disclosure and confession on the death of my first son, Vincent Paul. I find their statements callous and insensitive, and it is unfortunate that the reproductive health debate has come to this level. They should have given the sorrow of my family more respect.

Lilinawin ko lamang mabuti, Mr. President, para doon sa mga hindi naintindihan masyado kung ano ang kuwento eh, luminaw mabuti. Diane. Diane po ang pangalan ng pills na ginagamit ng aking asawa noon. Supervised po siya ng doktor habang ginagamit niya ito. Intelihente naman po ang asawa ko, alam niya kung paano ang gumamit nito. Malinaw po ang sinabi sa amin ng kanyang doctor, Dr. Emberga Santos. Kilala pala ng President Pro Tempore iyon. Katuwang ni Dr. Santos ang aking ina, si Dra. Herminia Castelo Sotto, the first Philippine Medical Commissioner of theWorkmen's Compensation Commission of the Department of Labor. A very good general physician. And para mas malinaw doon sa mga namimintas, tanungin nila ang isa sa mga pro-RH na si Ms. Bibeth Orteza kung sino si Dra. Herminia Castelo Sotto para malaman nila kung ano siya sa women's rights movement, ano siya sa kababaihang Rizalista, at kung gaano siya kagaling na pilantropo at magaling na doctor. Ayon sa kanila, ang pagbubuntis ng aking maybahay na si Helen, kahit may contraceptives, at gumagamit ng contraceptives, ang maaaring naging sanhi ng kumplikasyon, prematurity at eventually pagkamatay ng anak namin. Bakit ko ho iimbentuhin ang katotohanang ito, nanghihingi ba ng death certificate? Mayroon ako, Mr. President, bibigyan kita.

Bibigyan ko sila ng kopya. Baka akala nila hindi ko papatulan. Maliwanag, Ginoong Pangulo, nagko-contraceptives, nabuntis. Iyon ang issue. Kahit nabuhay pa, kahit na umabot ng sabihin nating dalawampung taon, tatlumpung taon o isang buwan lamang nabuhay, ang issue, nagko -contraceptives, nabuntis. Iyon ang maliwanag. Mayroon din naman po ng mga pag-aaral na makakapagpatunay na mayroong masamang epekto ang contraceptives sa kalusugan ng mga bata na ipinanganak ng mga ina na gumagamit ng contraceptives. Ito po ay pinatototohanan ng mga pag-aaral at hindi ko po inimbento ito.

In the book entitled "The Greatest Experiment Ever Performed on Women, Exploding the Estrogen Myth"--ito po ang title ng libro--by Barbara Seaman, it was stated that those who take pills but still get pregnant have more abnormal children and lower I.Q. Hindi naman po siguro kelangang maging doktor pa ako para maintindihan ko o para maintindihan ng tao at malaman na ano ang maaaring maging kumplikasyon ng paggamit ng pills ngunit nagbuntis pa rin, di po ba? Mr. President, "In a cohort of 50,282 pregnancies, 19 children with cardiovascular defects were born to 1,042 women who received female hormones during early pregnancy (18.2 per 1,000). Among 49,240 children not exposed in utero to these agents, there were 385 with cardiovascular malformations (7.8 per 1,000). Six children with cardiovascular defects were born to a subgroup of 278 women who used oral contraceptives during early pregnancy (21.5 per 1,000). After the data were controlled for a wide variety of potentially confounding factors by multivariate methods, the association between utero exposure to female hormones and cardiovascular birth defects was statistically significant".

Hindi po galing sa akin ito. Ang source po nito, title "Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female Sex Hormones by Olli P. Heinonen, M.D., M.SC., Dennis Slone, M.D., Richard R. Monson, M.D., Ernest B. Hook, M.D., and Samuel Shapiro, M.B., F.R.C.P.)

So, doon po sa unang bahagi ng aking turno en contra, sa aking palagay ay naipaliwanag ko na ang mga sumusunod:

1. That contraceptives are abortifacients.

2. That contraceptives pose health risks to women and may even expose them to serious health problems and death, and

3. That contraceptives have harmful effects to children born to mothers who were using contraceptives and still got pregnant.

Doon po sa mga bumabatikos at nanggagalaiti sa akin, sagutin ninyo yung mga yun, punto por punto, at hindi atakihin ang persona ko. Sa facebook, sa twitter, kung anu-ano ang sinasabi. Hindi naman nila naintindihan yung punto ko. May mga nananakot pa. G. Presidente, kung sa mga drug lords hindi ako natakot, sa kanila pa? Ang lambot nga ng dating ng umpisa ng turno en contra ko, tapos gagalitin nila ako?

G. Pangulo, gusto kong bigyan diin na hindi ko tinututulan ang paggamit nila ng contraceptives dito sa Pilipinas at lalong hindi ko pinagbabawal ang paggamit nito. Hindi ko intensyon na panghimasukan ang personal na bahagi ng buhay pamilya ng bawat Pilipino. Ang sa akin lamang, bilang mambabatas at pinagkakatiwalaan ng nakararami, obligasyon ko na suriin, busisiin at pag-aralang mabuti ang pangkalahatang implikasyon ng bill na ito sa lahat ng mamamayan, ngayon at sa susunod na henerasyon.

Inihain ko po nung Lunes ang mga mahahalagang puntong dapat isaalang-alang natin bago natin ipasa ang batas na ito, partikular ang nakapangangambang epekto nito sa kalusugan ng ating mga kababaihan at maging sa kanilang mga anak, tulad ng aking masaklap na karanasan.

Mr. President, given all these repercussions, would we still want to take the risk and brush aside all the probable detrimental effects of these family planning supplies and devices by passing, without scrutiny, the RH bill? Ako po ay nagmamalasakit sa lahat ng nagtiwala sa akin kaya naman binubusisi ko ang bawat aspeto ng bill na ito. Sana po ay maintindihan ninyo na ginagampanan ko lamang ang aking tungkulin sa bayan.

Today, with your kind indulgence, allow me to proceed to the other parts of my turno en contra. Last Monday, I mentioned that I will show how the RH Bill violates Philippine sovereignty. My point in stating that is, we should not be pushed over by any state or international organizations in determining what is best for our country. Hindi po porke ginagawa na nila sa kanilang bansa, ay dapat gawin din natin. Tandaan natin na may iba't iba tayong kultura, kasaysayan at tradisyon, at higit sa lahat, pangangailangan. Sino sila para magdikta sa atin? Hindi tayo gaya nila na iba ang pagpapahalaga sa pagbuklud-buklod ng pamilyang Pilipino at pagpapahalaga sa buhay ng tao. Iba ang ugali doon sa ibang bansa.

And so, I will prove that this bill has been significantly influenced by various organizations, both local and international, which are of doubtful character. They have been pushing for the passage of this bill to serve their ulterior motives far-off from the aims of the proponents of the bill. Kung si Senadora Pia Cayetano at si Senadora Miriam Santiago lamang ang pinag-uusapan natin, I am very sure of their noble intentions. Kaso, napasukan tayo.

Mr. President. Hindi ganoon kadali ang usaping ito. To prove it, eto. The sponsors of the measure in the House of Representatives also and here, openly admitted that the statistics used in the bill were obtained from various sources. Regrettably, the credibility and trustworthiness of these sources are questionable. And who are these sources? Reliable po ba ang sources na ito? May pinapaboran ba ang source dahil makikinabang sila sa kalaunan? Dapat nating itanong ito sa mga tao at organisasyon na aktibong nagtutulak ng pagpasa nito.

Tandaan natin na mula noong 1997, ilang Kongreso na ang nakalipas at panay-panay ang pagsulpot ng RH bill, iba-iba lamang ang title at parati itong hindi naipapasa. Hindi ba dapat nating suriin ng masinsinan kung talaga bang kailangan natin ito? At ano ang motibo ng organisasyong nagtutulak nito?

Halimbawa na lamang, nabanggit noon ni Senadora Pia Cayetano ang ilang statistical materials na isinagawa raw ng National Statistics Office, kasama dito ang Philippine 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey. Nakarating po sa komite niya ang impormasyong iyan, kaya naman inilahad niya rito sa atin. Ang problema, ang nagpondo sa paggawa ng mga statistical data na ito ay ang United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Malamang na ang resulta ng kanilang pinondohang materials ay papabor sa kagustuhan ng nagbigay ng pondo. The USAID, for the information of the Body, is the agency which the United States uses as its principal instrument to control and reduce the population through birth control worldwide. It is also the same agency which funded the DKT's project. Dhramendra Kumar Tyagi or DKT is the largest manufacturer of Trust condoms, pills and other contraceptives. Nais ng DKT na lumaganap ang paggamit ng contraceptive products sa Pilipinas. Magaling naman po tayo sa simpleng logic, hindi po ba?

Ulitin natin, USAID ang nagpopondo sa NSO para lumabas ang impormasyong kailangan ng population control sa bansa, at USAID din ang tumutulong sa DKT na mapalaganap ang produkto nila. Magaling, ano po? Gagawa ka ng demand for contraceptives, tapos ikaw ang magsu-supply ng solusyon.

Magandang ideya para sa marketing, Mr. President, pero hindi sa paggawa ng batas. Sana huwag nating gawing pain ang ating bansa sa ganitong pag-e-eksperimento.

Also, the Sponsor used statistical materials provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) to support their position. But, as correctly pointed out by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, the Guttmacher Institute came into existence as the marketing arm of Planned Parenthood in 1968 and has masterminded the manipulation of reproduction in the United States, promoting abortion, sterilization, and amniocentesis and genetic screening, as well as foreign population control.

The Institute is predisposed to a particular line of attitude in relation to population and birth, and that is to control population and not to deal with health concerns. Ang concern ko lamang po, sana ay mapagkakatiwalaan ang mga data na ginagamit natin sa bill na ito. Because of the delicate nature of the measure and its eventual impact on the future and well-being of the country and the people, we should be assured that the statistics presented to support the bill are beyond doubt. These statistics should be gathered, compiled, analyzed and synthesized by persons or institutions with no personal biases or motives in the bill. We cannot simply rely on these questionable institutions to provide the statistics for us, since these statistical data would help us make intelligible and accurate judgment on the issue at hand.

Sa totoo lamang po, iyon pong figures na isinabmit dito sa plenary tungkol sa number of unintended pregnancies, induced abortions, hospitalizations due to complications of abortion, mistimed births or unwanted babies, or maternal deaths ay mahirap din pong tanggapin. Kasi they appear to be mere estimates or extrapolations of figures and not mathematically exact.

I have been severely criticized, Mr. President, katakut-takot po ang criticisms sa akin when I questioned the truthfulness of the claim that 11 mothers die every day. Ngunit bakit naman po hindi ko ku-kuwestiyunin ang figure na ito, kung alam ko na hindi ito tama? Kung sa figures pa lamang ay sumasablay na sila, what more sa contents na mismo ng bill, hindi po ba?

Ang sabi po noong proponents of the Bill at madalas pong ginagamit sa House of Representatives ito, 11 Filipino women die every day when they talk about maternal mortality. They have not, however, supported this claim with accurate, consistent, and empirical data. Kung tutuusin, ito po ang ginawa ko. Kasi nanghihingi po ako ngunit iyong ibang nagtutulak ng RH bill sinasabi pa sa mga interview nila, "Sabihin ninyo kay Senator Sotto doon siya humingi sa NSO". Humingi ako sa NSO, ngunit walang ibinigay sa akin. Nagpaikot ako ngayon.

Kung tutuusin po, sa ipinagawa ko sa mga staff ko, ito po may mga record kami galing sa mga hospital, hindi pa nga umabot man lamang sa kalahati ng 11 maternal deaths ang nakalap nila sa mga hospital sa Pilipinas noong 2011.

For example, Mr. President, sa Nueva Vizcaya Provincial Hospital, ang maternal deaths na naitala nila sa 2011 ay dalawa. Let me emphasize that this is for the entire year of 2011--dalawa lamang. Hindi po ito kada araw. Sa Pangasinan Provincial Hospital, apat lamang ang naitalang namatay sa panganganak sa nakaraang taon; sa Batangas Regional Hospital, seven out of 2,584 deliveries ang naitala or .27%. Hindi pa nga umabot sa 1%. Sa Cavite Naval Hospital, wala silang naitala na namatay noong 2011 sa panganganak.

Kaya ang hirap pong paniwalaan iyong figure na 11 mothers die every day. Saan kaya talaga galing itong figure na ito, Mr. President, na ibinigay sa mga committee natin? Meron po tayong official dito ng Senate Secretariat na bumiyahe sa Uganda just last year. Nagulat siya, nakita niya may mga promo tungkol sa reproductive health doon sa Uganda. Alam ba ninyo ang nakalagay? Eleven mothers die every day in Uganda. Parang template eh.

Kahit saan iyon ang ginagamit nila. Nagtataka lamang ako talaga kung paano nila nakuha itong figure na ito. Kung ang National Statistics Coordinating Board nga walang maibigay; ang Philippine Association of Hospitals ini-refer lamang kami sa Department of Health, saan naman kaya kinuha ng Department of Health itong figures na ito? Diyan na ngayon papasok iyong mga organisasyon na ipiprisinta ang mga gawa-gawang figure. Para ano? Para malihis ang mga mambabatas at masunod ang mga gusto nilang mangyari sa bill na ito.

Uulitin ko lamang po. Hindi po sa wala akong pakialam sa mga nanay na namamatay. Dapat nga walang namamatay ni isa. Kung ano ang dapat na gawin mas mabuti. Ang punto ko, ayaw kong gamitin nila ang maling figures at statistics na ito para lamang hikayatin ang mga nakararami para ipasa ang RH bill. Huwag ganoon. Maling conclusion po ang kahihinatnan nitong maling figures. Gaya po nang nasabi ko noong Lunes, nakakatakot po. Sana naman huwag.

Pag naipasa ang RH bill baka mas maraming kababaihan ang mapasubo sa kamatayan dahil sa contraceptives. Ayaw po nating mangyari iyon.

I think it was Joseph Goebbles, Hitler's hated propagandist, who said that a lie repeated several times would eventually be accepted as fact by the people.

This is exactly what is happening now since several documents have pointed out that the so-called 11 maternal deaths a day in the Philippines is a canard. And yet, RH proponents continue to hoist it as gospel truth. So, I challenge the RH supporters to give me the names and faces of the 11 mothers who died in one particular day if they want me to believe their claim.

Ngayon po, sige ipagpalagay natin na tama ang statistics, doon tayo sa kabilang side, na ibinibigay nitong mga foreign institution na nakapasok sa Kongreso at saka sa Senado. Pero sa mga datos nila mismo, hindi pa rin 11 maternal deaths ang lumalabas.

Here are the facts, Mr. President. Galing po sa kanila ito. The September 2010 report of the World Health Organization (WHO), na kung saan consultant po si Dra. Cabral; the United Nations International Children's Education Fund, (UNICEF), and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the World Bank estimated annual maternal deaths in the Philippines at 2,100 in 2008, four years ago, ang sabi nila. That is equivalent to 5.75 deaths a day which is way off the 11 per day. This was clearly down from the 2000 level of 4,100 or 11.2 a day daw, which was published in a report seven years ago by the same international agencies.

It should be noted, Mr. President, that the proponents' population projections and maternal mortality ratios (MMRs), or deaths per 100,000 live births, came from a census conducted 11 years ago. The UN Population Division's estimates were released just recently and, therefore, should be more reliable.

Now for the sake of argument, Mr. President, pro-RH figures themselves result in 5.75 maternal deaths a day at hindi 11 deaths tulad ng kanilang ipinagpipilitan. Gusto ko lamang pong i-correct iyong figures na nanggagaling dito sa United Nations at sa grupo na iyon.

Ngunit--ito na ang mabigat, Mr. President,--sabi ko nga--ulitin ko lamang--dapat ni isa walang namamatay. Ako po ay hindi masyadong makapaniwala agad kapag galing sa grupong ito.

Noong 2009, Mr. President, ako po ay Dangerous Drugs Board Chairman. Nagkaroon po ng convention sa Vienna, Austria ang United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Ako po ang nag-represent sa Pilipinas, nahalal pa nga akong presidente or head of delegation ng Asian contingent. Talagang gustong-gusto ko pong um-attend sapagkat noong mabasa ko iyong United Nations Office on Drug and Crime World Report, ang sabi, "The Philippines has 6.7 million drug dependents." Sa 90 million Filipinos noon, 6.7 million drug dependents, ang ibig sabihin po noon, dito sa loob ng Hall na ito, o sa Senado lamang mismo, sa 23, mga apat o lima ay drug dependents kung ganoon ang projection ng United Nations. Nakita po ninyo, 6.7 million.

Nagtataka po ako bilang Dangerous Drugs Board Chairman, hindi ko maintindihan kung saan nila kinuha ang figures na iyan. And then in that same World Report ng United Nations, they placed China with a number na ang drug dependents daw sa China, Mr. President, ay one million. Sa China na bilyones ang tao, na pinagmulan ng opium, one million lamang daw ang drug dependents; sa Pilipinas daw, 6.7 million. Iyon ang world report nitong grupo ng United Nations.

Aba, noong um-attend po ako, kinuwestyon ko po iyon. I attended the plenary. Noong nagsasalita na po ako roon sa round-table discussion ay hinila po ako at kinausap ng mga lider at opisyal ng United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime at dinala ako roon sa committee room meeting lamang nila. Sinama ko po....Ayan, buhay, tanungin ninyo, kasama ko si General Santiago at saka si General Galvante. Tumuloy po kami roon, kinausap namin sila.

Ang sabi ko, "Where did you get the 6.7 million drug dependents in the Philippines, while in China it's one million?" Alam ninyo kung ano ang explanasyon sa akin, Mr. President, iyon daw one million sa China, iyon daw iyong mga drug dependent sa mga rehabilitation center. Iyon lamang daw. Ang bulong nga sa akin noong iba roon, pini-PR kasi ng United Nations ang China kaya ayaw nilang ma-offend ito. Ang Pilipinas, ewan ko kung ano ang gusto nilang gawin sa atin.

Pinalalabas nila na 6.7 million ang drug dependents sa Pilipinas. Hindi po totoo. So, kinuwestyon ko po iyon. Ginawa ko pagbalik namin, nagpa-conduct kami ng household survey using the Philippine Institute Normal University and the DILG. Ano ang lumabas--1.7 million drug dependents in the Philippines in 2009. Iyon po ang tunay. Kasi, kung susundin natin ang formula nila sa China na one million lamang ang drug dependents dahil iyon lamang ang nasa mga rehab center, ang ibig sabihin, ang drug dependents sa Pilipinas, 56,000 lamang kasi iyon lamang ang nasa mga rehab center. Ganoon dapat.

Nakikita ninyo ang ulterior motive kapag gusto nilang magbigay ng mga statistic. Mayroon silang ibang gusto, Mr. President. The strong pressure and massive propaganda materials emanating from various groups cannot simply be put aside. They have been doing everything to impose their hidden agenda through the RH bill. The proponents of the bill admitted that they sought the assistance of various nongovernment organizations specifically to learn about the effects of certain procedures or nuances of terminologies used in the bill.

This, in effect, gave these organizations the opportunity to incorporate their distorted beliefs and principles in the bill. Let me name these organizations.

Let me start with foreign organizations that surreptitiously impose their hidden agenda through this bill.

Unahin na natin iyong National Security Study Memorandum 200.

1. By virtue of the National Security Study Memorandum 200, issued by Mr. Henry Kissinger who is the source of the entire family planning, population and poverty reduction programs of the United States, all loans, grants and aid coming from the United States and western powers must be based on reduction of population through birth control.

Nakasulat po sa kanila iyan. Doon sa kanila galing iyan. Since the USAID is the principal instrument for the so-called development programs, there are NGOs and government agencies in the Philippines that have been contacted, supported and funded by it. USAID, World Health Organization, World Bank and all economic agencies were given a directive to gear their policies and programs towards promoting the reduction of the world's population especially in less developed countries.

Kasamang-kasama po ang Pilipinas sa listahan.

2. United Nations agencies are using UN resources to advocate their agenda on a local level in order to bypass cultural and religious resistance. Ito pong si Gamal Serour, president of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), reported that the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) has a program in 25 countries to lobby religious leaders into dropping objections to the agenda. These programs are aimed at "re-educating" religious leaders and convincing them to accept their population control programs. The UN Secretariat released a report from the UN Human Rights Council calling on all nations to accept that women and girls must be granted access to legal abortion in order for them to fully enjoy their human rights. The report, written by UN Special Rapporteur Anand Grover, links abortion on demand with the fundamental right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

According to Grover, "Criminal laws penalizing and restricting induced abortion are the paradigmatic examples of impermissible barriers to the realization of women's right to health and must be eliminated."

Ito pa. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon opened a women's conference with the announcement of a new document entitled: "Investing in our Common future: Joint Action Plan for Women's and Children's Health," intended to accelerate progress towards MDGs 4 and 5. Millennium Development Goals po.

A draft of the Joint Action Plan circulated at the conference--at may nakakakuha naman po sa atin--cited examples of actions to be taken by governments and policymakers. The draft insists that states "fully integrate the following into all primary healthcare facilities: family planning and abortion-related care among other health issues." The draft Joint Action Plan also called on all states to "increase governments' portion of budget allocated to health and build on existing regional commitments to increase access to sexual and reproductive health services."

Douglas Sylva, Ph.D.--taga New York po ito--reported on March 5, 2004 that former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan congratulated and encouraged the leadership and work of the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), a group working for worldwide abortion on demand for women and girls. Where legal abortion is restricted to those abortions considered necessary to save the life of the mother, the IWHC recommends that abortion providers simply "adopt a broader" definition of what constitutes a threat to a woman's life by considering the risk of death if she seeks a clandestine procedure." Iyon ang pangkumbinse.

He further states that the message of former Secretary General Kofi Annan implies that if skilfully argued, abortion advocates can skirt restrictive abortion laws. Kaya po ang dumi ng isip namin dito sa Section 3(i) nung ating bill.

3. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), according to its website has for more than three decades, lobbied worldwide for the liberalization and eventual repeal of all laws that place any restrictions whatever on access to abortion. This stance is reflected in all of its major policy statements, as described in the IPPF's Vision 2000 Strategic Plan. In its Vision 2000 document, which is considered to be the "marching orders" for all its members, repeatedly and unambiguously calls for the legalization of abortion in countries where the procedure is currently unlawful. Currently, the IPPF is operating in the Philippines through its member, Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), which had actively participated during committee hearings.

This is IPPF's vision, Mr. President: "We believe that a woman has the right to choose and access safe abortion services and we advocate for changes in legislation to support this."

That is their true meaning of Pro-Choice. Sa totoo lamang, mayroon pa pong ibang mga international organization na nakapasok na rito sa Pilipinas na nagbibigay at nagpapalaganap ng mga serbisyo at nagpapamahagi ng mga artificial contraceptive sa mga Pilipino. Ito ay para lubos na tanggapin pa ng mga Pilipino ang konsepto ng contraceptives na tulad din ng isinusulong ng IPPF. Isa na po rito ang Marie Stopes International na may sangay dito sa Pilipinas.

Before I proceed to that and other organizations, Mr. President, my dear colleagues, please allow me to talk a little more about Margaret Sanger, who founded the IPPF. The three major thrusts of her work are reflected in today's IPPF's programs throughout the world and these are: 1) free sex; 2) eugenics; and 3) birth control. Sanger, in her first pamphlet listed the methods of birth control, among which she included abortion. She knew that once sex education and birth control were accepted, abortion would follow. Mr. President, mapapansin po natin na sa U.S. at Canada, napalawing na po ang pagtanggap sa konsepto ng aborsyon sa pamamagitan ng pagtulak ng birth control. At ito din po ngayon ang kanilang estratehiya--strategy--para sa kalaunan ay matanggap na din po ng mga Pilipino ang konseptong ito.

Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Bakit po? Bakit ko nasabi iyan? Indeed she wrote in her book--libro niya mismo. Ang title ng libro--Woman and the New Race: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Iyon po ang founder ng IPPF.

Ito pa: This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for the IPPF. Ito, Mr. President, there was even a darker side to Margaret Sanger: a side that IPPF people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in "eugenics." Ano ba ang eugenics? Ito po ay defined as "the application of the laws of hereditary to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race." Yan ang definition niya.

To Sanger, this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered as to be "dysgenic stock" in order to create a race of superior intellectuals. Ito na rin po iyong tinatawag na eugenics. Sabi nila, ganito po iyon--if you are weak, useless, uneducated and poor, you have no right to bear children, you have no right in this world. Iyon ang utak nila. So, kapag mahirap ka, hindi ka pwedeng mag-anak. Iyan po ang gusto niya. Sa madaling salita, ang gusto mangyari ng konsepto ng eugenics ay ang magkaroon ng birth control para ang matitira na lamang sa mundo ay ang lahing superior at intelektwal. Hindi kaya ito ang maaaring mangyari kapag itinulak natin pilit iyang RH bill?

Here again we have the shades of Hitler's ambition to create a super Aryan race that prompted his sick mind to eliminate all Jews in Germany and neighboring countries.

In an article Margaret Sanger wrote in 1922, she defended the U.S. immigration policy of not allowing the entry to the U.S. of the feeble-minded or diseased people by saying that this policy "was reasonable and eugenic."

Sanger also attempted to unduly influence Mahatma Gandhi to adhere to her distorted principles. Fortunately, Mr. President, Sanger's attempts to do so proved futile. Kasi po, the two activists met in December of 1936--iyan po ang litrato nila--when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control, population and the plight of women in India. Kinakabahan sila noon na palaki nang palaki at padami nang padami ang population ng India.

At that time, Sanger staunchly advocated the global use of artificial contraceptives and, in order to make the acceptance of such contraceptives easier to the Indian populace, sought to make Gandhi an ally. While Sanger claimed she merely wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of the widespread use of artificial birth control methods. Gandhi firmly stood by his belief and that the spiritual bonds of marriage are strengthened by sexual abstinence. He thus completely rejected Sanger's plea for contraception as a tool to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative sex, which he viewed as immoral lust.

Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis--ganoon noong araw sa India--Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that:

Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil. Between a person who had been actively promoting free sex, eugenics and birth control and a person like Gandhi who had been an advocate of nonviolence, discipline, chastity, control of the palate, sino ba ang dapat nating paniwalaan? Kanino bang yapak ang dapat nating sundan? Kaninong mga pangaral ang mas akma sa ating mga Pilipino na kinagisnang kaugalian at paniniwala? Klarong-klaro naman po, madali naman masagot iyong tanong na iyon.

Now, let me proceed with the other organizations backing up the bill. I will disclose the workings of local organizations that push the passage of the RH Bill. Sa aking pagsisiyasat, pagsasaliksik at pagmamatyag, sa bawat galaw ng iba't-ibang organisasyon na may kinalaman sa usaping ito, aking napag-alaman na may mga lihim na hangarin ang iba sa mga naturang organisasyong ito, na nagkukubli sa kanilang sinasabing intensiyon na mapabuti ang kalusugan ng ating mga kababaihan. Aking natuklasan na may mga local organizations na ginagamit ng kanilang mga katuwang o nagagamit sila ng mga katuwang na foreign organizations upang unti-unting imulat ang kamalayan ng sambayanang Pilipino sa moderno at liberal na reproductive health schemes, simula sa paggamit ng artificial contraceptives hanggang sa malaunan ay pagtanggap ng bansa sa konsepto ng abortion. This is the big picture, and the RH Bill is an important detail to complete this picture.

1. There are local organizations that were supposedly receiving funds from the international organizations, such as the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), which claims to be a very proud member of the number one international organization, which happens to promote abortion worldwide.

IPPF's recent financial statement reveals that FPOP received a subsidy amounting to US$625,095 or almost P27.5 million in 2011. It thus appears that FPOP has already adopted IPPF's abortion advocacy. FPOP's website displays the organization's support to the use of abortive facilities. In fact, the FPOP posted on its website an instructional brochure discussing different methods of abortion, depending on the weeks of pregnancy. Furthermore, FPOP's website is linked to a website named Women on Waves which provides contacts to abortion clinics worldwide. Kapalit ng malaking halagang ipinamamahagi ng IPPF sa mga miyembro nito ay ang pagsunod sa mga programang isinusulong ng IPPF, tulad ng pagsasabatas ng abortion at pagpapalaganap ng artificial contraceptives.

2. Another organization receiving financial support from these international organizations is the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN). Ito pong RHAN na-check namin sa Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) wala pong records. But, we have discovered that this was confirmed during one of the interpellations on the measure that RHAN submitted a budget proposal to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) containing a budget allocation for "nurturing legislators", to expedite the passage of the RH Bill. Aside from the provision to nurture legislators, there are also monetary allocations for development, production, and dissemination of information segregated into target audiences: for media and professionals, and communities mobilizations. Nakikita ninyo iyan? May target pa sila e--media, professionals, communities mobilizations. Doon daw gagamitin iyong pera.

3. LIKHAAN, an affiliate of RHAN, is also one of the local organizations actively pushing for the RH Bill. It reportedly received funds from the UNFPD for the passage of the RH Bill. Ang LIKHAAN naman po sa SEC, revoked ang registration. LIKHAAN openly supports abortion, as it features in its website step by step procedure on how to abort a baby. To make matters worse, the instructional material desperately intends to reach the Filipino masses by using Filipino language and putting pictures that clearly illustrate how to abort. Ayan kitang-kita ninyo. In addition, there is a video featuring Dr. Junice Melgar, head of Likhaan who was quoted as saying, "If you are pro-women, you will have contacts to the services that are underground," and whose other statements refer to abortion service providers. In an article entitled Philippines: Pro-abortion groups funding RH bill backers, it revealed the following financial grants granted to RH lobby groups:

$90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN) for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011); $6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009); $1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009 and 2010; $1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009); $39,000 dollars to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007); $88,000 dollars to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and $75,000 dollars to "Catholics for Choice" to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009) Sa laki po ng mga budget ng mga organisasyong ito, hindi katakatakang napakasigla ng kampanya nila para sa RH Bill--sa radyo, telebisyon, pahayagan, lalo na po sa internet. May mga commercial pa.

4. Mr. President, Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines, which actively participated in the deliberation of the RH bill, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, excludes the unborn from their definition of "children" and claims that "calling the unborn a child is going beyond what the Constitution provides." Sa SEC po, Securities and Exchange Commission, itong Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines, sabi ng SEC, it does not exist. This organization further claims that only children have human rights, excepting the unborn.

Kung hindi kinikilala ng organisasyong ito na may karapatang pantao ang mga batang nasa sinapupunan pa lamang ng kanilang ina, hindi malayo pong tinatanggap din nila ang ideya ng abortion tulad ng pagtanggap ng mga foreign organizations na nagsusulong nito sa ating bansa. These foreign organizations underhandedly seek to legalize abortion in countries where it is still a crime. And that I believe is exactly what they are doing now in our country. Ini-smuggle dito ang RH bill, Mr. President. This bill is foreign-dictated policy, forcing us to adopt population control and abortion, contrary to the values that we uphold.

Sana huwag tayong magbulag-bulagan sa katotohanan na iniimpluwensyahan tayo ng mga banyaga sa pamamagitan ng bill na ito. Gumagamit sila ng mga mapanlinlang na impormasyon upang sa ganoon tayo ay makumbinsi nila na tanggapin ang kanilang mga baluktot na paniniwala.

They want us to believe that the use of contraceptives lowers the number of abortions. On the surface, this claim appears to be reasonable. It seems obvious that, if one uses some type of birth control, iyon nga naman, eh, di, when engaging in sexual intercourse, aba, one will be less likely to get pregnant than if one used no means of birth control. So the general public believes this claim and sees the distribution of contraceptives as part of the solution to the "abortion problem". Yet, Mr. President, there are studies, supported by facts transpiring in the last 50 years that cast a large cloud of doubt over this conclusion.

In fact, in a study undertaken by Raymond Pearl, a John Hopkins professor and noted authority on this matter, wrote: "Those who practice contraception as part of their sex life, by their own admission, resort to criminally induced abortions about three times as often proportionately as do their comparable non-contraceptor contemporaries."

Also, a report prepared for the Royal Commission on Population in Great Britain found that the incidence of induced abortion as a percentage of all pregnancies was nine times higher for women using contraceptives than for women not using birth control.

So, Mr. President, with the foregoing, I think I have adequately shown that most of the proponents of the bill have been misled by deceptive and misleading information to push for the bill's passage. I have two more parts to go but I will try to abbreviate it into one part and that will include the issues on sex education and population control.