Contraceptives

At least there is some semblance of an ideological debate going on over the reproductive rights bill that appears to be on the verge of passing the House of Representatives. That is a far cry from the contrived, petty controversies that saps the productive energy of the Senate.

The bill, which will make contraceptives more accessible to those who want them, is being vigorously opposed by pro-life groups. A massive signature campaign is now underway to register opposition to the House bill.

The reproductive rights bill, from every angle, falls far short of legalizing abortions — a matter that would have sent orthodox Catholics to the barricades. But it does encourage sex education programs for students, expanded family planning programs in the public health care system and, possibly, publicly funded dissemination of contraceptive devices.

The bill is being opposed by the bishops — one of whom threatened a legislator associated with the bill with virtual excommunication. The signature campaign is being mounted from the level of the parishes, enlisting the support of churchgoers.

We are all familiar with the arguments put forth by those advocating better reproductive health services provided by the public sector. For several decades, the Philippines has maintained one of the highest population growth rates in the world. Unabated population growth threatens to exhaust our natural resources and keep poverty levels high.

High and sustained population growth rates coupled with sluggish economic growth has created consequences that spill beyond our borders. The Philippines has now become a major exporter of manpower to the rest of the world. We have a migrant labor population estimated at close to 10 million. That excludes Filipinos who have permanently settled abroad and acquired foreign citizenships.

Advocates of reproductive rights legislation are not presenting their case as a population-control measure. They are presenting it as a measure better ensuring the health of mothers, particularly through careful spacing of childbirths. The reduction of our over-all population growth rate is a secondary — and in no way guaranteed — consequence of ensuring proper spacing of births.

DENR Secretary and former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza leads a pro-life campaign that is opposing passage of the reproductive rights bill at the House. He has been a passionate advocate for this cause as long as we can remember.

Over coffee a few days ago, Atienza explained his position. The wide dissemination of contraceptives and sex education programs aiming to warn the young against conception will, he says, create a warped culture that is anti-life.

Such an anti-life culture, he warns, will spread to other dimensions of our social life. It will infect even the way we treat our natural environment.

Ultimately, he says, an anti-life culture will bring us to a situation akin to what is being experienced by those societies now enduring negative population growth rates. In these societies, couples brought up to disdain childbirth evolve lifestyles that do not include nurturing children.

That inculcated fear of reproduction will have even more adverse economic and social consequences. It will weaken the fiber of our social life. It will eventually bring us to a predicament of unsustainable populations such as we now see in countries like Singapore, Japan, Russia and Germany.

Atienza disagrees with the proposition the high population growth is the cause of widespread poverty. Other factors — such as bad governance and wrong-headed policies — caused high poverty incidence.

He notes that societies with dense populations, such as China and India, are now leading the world in economic growth. These countries have found the right policy mix to convert their large populations into strong forces for growth.

By contrast, societies with declining populations, such as Japan, appear headed to permanent economic stagnation. The demographics in Japan is clearly inhospitable to economic dynamism, with more and more old people being supported by less and less young people.

This is a dystopia that Atienza raises.

If we, through the reproductive rights bill, somehow succeed in abruptly dropping our population growth rate, we will in a few decades find ourselves in the same predicament the Japanese now find themselves in. We will have a large aging population with not enough young people to support them.

The present Philippine population growth rate, says Atienza, has settled at a stable rate that ensures adequate replenishment of our people. There is no urgent need to disturb this natural stabilization of our population growth.

What needs to be done, according to the pro-life advocate, is to continue the work in providing better governance for our people, increasing investments in improving our human capital and sustaining our economic growth. A robust population will ensure us a strong economy well into the future.

This is, to be sure, a fascinating ideological position — and one held with a passion by people such as Lito Atienza.

But I think it glosses over what is, on the face of it, the principal intent of the reproductive rights bill: which is to secure women’s health.

The goal of promoting women’s health invariably includes provision of both information and technologies to achieve better birth spacing. Abstention, the past teaches us, simply does not work.