SC Says RH Law Constitutional (Except Where it Matters)

SC rules RH Law constitutional, except Sec. 7, which is the heart of the whole policy.

To quote:

Section 7 of Republic Act 10354 (Access to Family Planning) states that “all accredited public health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, which shall also include medical consultations, supplies and necessary and reasonable procedures for poor and marginalized couples having infertility issues who desire to have children.”

It also states that hospitals “shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health facility which is conveniently accessible.”

Apparently, Sec. 7 goes against the right of the petitioners’ freedom to exercise their religion.

Also, some sections of Sec. 23 were questioned for violating: 1) right to free speech; 2) void for vagueness doctrine; and again, 3) right to exercise freedom of religion. (source)

What I lack in Law degree I make up for common sense. How does education and scientifically-proven information (that saved millions of lives around the world) prevent an institution that has been around since the 16th century from doing what they need to do? It’s preposterous, really.

But as much as the Catholic Church’ irresponsible and obsolete stand on public health angers me, my blood boils more for the SC judges who deliberated on this.

Choosing to make both sides happy, the SC effectively crushed RH Law’s 16 years of journey to fruition by killing the core of the law, which could have helped women from the marginalized spectrum make healthier, more informed decisions about their respective families.

Men deciding for issues that affect women. Men with no understanding of situations outside their antiquated doctrine calling the shots over modern society. People who prudishly equate reproductive health with immorality. People deemed as the nation’s stewards of justice and fairness–they of the finest minds–betraying the people’s trust.

I. Am. So. So. Angry.

panda

Yes, other major provisions still stand, but really, it’s a Pyrrhic victory for pro-RH people, and for progressive thinking and educational empowerment for the nation as a whole.


2 Responses

  1. :D

    Fot, the one you quoted says couples with infertility issues, which could mean hospitals have to provide invitro to anyone who asks :D a procedure that is expensive, and will eventually boil down to additional tax burden to tax payers (aka middle class) :D so I’m glad they ruled that unconstitutional :p

    Politics should not meddle with religion and vice versa. Allowing people to practice their religion freely is good. You can look at it as allowing muslims wear their headgears around a campus without being forced to conform to school regulations. :D

    Besides, magic can explain half the stuff science can’t :D even with all the progress in science, a torn condom can still make a girl preggy :p (unless it’s another dood he’s doing :D) :p

    April 9, 2014 at 1:18 am

    • Syao Chan

      Omitooot! :3

      That’s a fair point, pero it’s still the right of an individual to have access to these information, lalo na marginalized ones. Maybe it can be amended na we can filter out those who approach the State for costly procedures?

      Politics and religion DEFINITELY should not mix. The problem is the church has selective morality issues. Pag corruption, tahimik. Pag RH, nagrarally. Hayst.

      At nahaluan mo pa talaga ng yaoi sa huli hahaha!

      April 9, 2014 at 2:36 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>