ALFI’s Position Paper on the Magna Carta for Women

1. We categorically reject the inclusion in Sec 20 of House Bills 164 and 2111 of “reproductive health services” among the health services to be provided by the government. The term, “reproductive health services,” has been used by supporters of abortion, over many years, in many countries, and by many means. We similarly reject the use elsewhere in HB164 and HB2111 of the terms “reproductive health,” and “reproductive rights,” which have the same history. The term "reproductive health" as per international definition includes the right to abortion, which is illegal. "Reproductive health" as a concept and practice is controversial and divisive among our people. "Reproductive rights" is a political term referring mainly to the right not to reproduce, contrary to what the term suggests. In its universally accepted definitions, "reproductive rights" means that contraception and abortion are framed as rights of women, resulting from the woman's exclusive decision to choose whether to have children or not. While we are also committed to safeguard the dignity of women, we oppose any suggestion that child-bearing is a form of discrimination or oppression that is grouped together with such problems as violence against women, lack of representation in political decision-making, or unemployment. Our constitution and the beliefs and sentiments of our people, completely reject the inhuman practice of abortion, which in no way benefits women, whether mothers or their unborn daughters. May we therefore suggest that these be omitted from the sections, since the statements will remain valid and relevant for the well-being of women.
2. We are also concerned by the reference to “family planning” in the same sections. We know the consequences of a society adopting artificial means of contraception: we can see it in many countries of the West, and some here in the East. In some of the countries of Europe, a typical girl being born today has no brothers or sisters, no cousins, and no aunts or uncles – but she does have four grandparents, whom she will have to support some day through her social security contributions. This sounds unthinkable to us, but fifty or sixty years ago the same countries had stable families, with more children than we do now. The only thing separating us from such a future is a willingness to say no to artificial contraception, and rely on natural family planning which preserves the value of life and family. We trust, with some trepidation, that you, our legislators, and the public, will recognize the abyss that lies before us as a nation, and wisely choose the narrow road to safety for our Filipino society and people.
3. We strongly oppose Sec. 72, Penal Sanctions, of H.B. 797. The Magna Carta is intended to shape the future of Philippine society regarding the equal dignity and status of women and men, by changing patterns of thinking. It is not a suitable vehicle for penal sanction, because its implementation is necessarily subject to a great deal of interpretation, which can easily be abused to silence those who simply disagree. If adopted, the proposed penal sanctions will put an end to free discussion of women’s issues. This is not how a just society is built. Penal sanctions are best left to existing laws which already sanction offenses against women, such as Republic Act No. 9208 (“Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”), Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-violence Against Women and Their Children Act”), and Republic Act No. 8353 (“Anti-Rape Law of 1987)
4. We support the inclusion of the statements found in Sec 9 of HB797, that “in all cases the rights of the children shall be paramount,” as necessary for the welfare of our children and of our society as a whole.