The RH Bill: Economic growth alone will not solve overpopulation

I cannot say in absolute terms that I am a strong advocate of the proposed Reproductive Health bill (RH Bill). In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need to introduce such legislation. But we do not live in a perfect world and if one’s intention is to seek flaws in the proposed bill, one will surely find it. It is not perfect and neither are the people who categorically dismiss it. To be sure, no legislation is perfect, which is why our legislators need to review it thoroughly and propose revisions if need be before passing it. The problem is, most Filipinos are not keen on discussing things objectively. They are quick to label proposals in a negative light even before a proper deliberation is effected.

I cannot say that I know the proposed bill by heart. Only the authors of the bill and quite possibly its strongest proponents know the true agenda behind it. One thing I can state is that I am an advocate of any measure that seeks to further empower Filipinos, specifically Filipino women. Women bear the full brunt of pregnancy, childbirth, and rearing a young child. This is particularly relevant in Philippine society where the majority of its citizens still tend to see women as all destined to be homemakers or worse, mere vessels of the unborn child. I am also in favor of any legislation, which seeks to address the growing population of Filipinos who do not have any means of supporting themselves.

The RH bill has indeed, divided the sentiments of the nation. A lot of people say that we do not need the RH bill. And it is not just the staunch members of the Catholic Church who are against it. Some of those who are against the proposed RH Bill have valid reasons for opposing it. They say that the estimated cost of implementing the RH bill will be about three billion pesos and some people are convinced that it is just going to be a total waste of their taxes. But isn’t it that investing in people is more important for the future of our nation? We can’t continue to let the weakening education system simply spiral out of control.

The other alternative is to seek private donations for such a measure. Some even pointed out that in western societies, private donors fund NGOs. But as quickly as they pointed that out, they also claimed that we couldn’t rely on private donors because most Filipinos prefer to keep their money in their own pockets; which is why NGO’s will likely continue to be perceived to be a burden by most Filipinos.

I cannot blame some Filipinos for being skeptical about the proposed bill. After all, Filipinos cannot say in absolute terms that they know and can see where their taxes are being used. So it appears that the lack of trust in our public servants is a valid enough excuse for some to reject the RH bill.

Sadly, Filipinos cannot seem to trust their public servants with public funds anymore. It’s always at the back of the average Filipino’s mind that public servants will pocket the funds or will find a way to make money out of opportunities such as in dealing with suppliers with a vested interest in the procurement and distribution of the health care kits.

This collective lack of trust has nothing to do with the proposed RH Bill though. The lack of trust has more to do with most Filipinos’ lack of accountability and weak implementation of the rule of law. Ironically, this lack of trust even in some of our well-meaning public servants seems to be hindering some Filipinos from supporting legislations that can quite possibly move the country forward. This situation is not just limited to the RH bill. Endemic lack of trust seems to extend even to calls for the amendment of the 1987 Constitution. Some Filipinos think that those who seek amendments also have vested interest, which doesn’t include the rest of the public.

I like hearing both sides of the argument. But those who are against the RH bill tend to contradict themselves. One of their strongest arguments is that economic liberalization will address the needs of the people more comprehensively than the proposed bill. I can agree with this concept except, in the same breath they also say that “the (Philippine) oligarchs are getting richer by the day – SLEX, NLEX, MERALCO, PLDT, PAL, MAYNILAD” and “the trapos are spending pork barrel like mad – Aquino alone has P68B in Pork barrel.”

Well, going by the same logic, it can also be argued that since members of the Philippine oligarchy are “getting richer by the day” because they control most of the goods and services and, likewise, the “trapos” are also quite happy spending their pork barrels, then there is very little chance that economic liberalization will happen in the Philippines any time soon in any case. Himself, being a member of the so-called oligarchy, Philippine President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino may, as alleged, be tuning out calls for economic liberalization. But then his staunch advocacy for broad access to reproductive health care in the Philippines is widely-lauded.

Removing the economic provision in the constitution that bars 100% foreign ownership is not a guarantee that foreign investors will come rushing in to invest in the Philippines. It is very misleading for people to say that this is the best solution that can generate jobs and provide education for Filipinos instead of the RH bill. While the RH bill cannot guarantee jobs for most Filipinos, removing this “60/40” provision won’t guarantee it either. For one thing, foreign investors will not invest in educating Filipinos, that’s for sure.

Indeed, some people seem to be forgetting that it is not just the economic provisions that are stopping foreign companies from coming to our shores. As Peter Wallace wrote in his opinion piece (boldface applied where emphasis required):

But in our briefing we were also required to list some of the key constraints to investing. In politics, personal interest taking precedence over the national good; uncontrolled population growth; weak educational system; graft and corruption, inadequate infrastructure; a judiciary in need of major improvement and weak governance.

To reiterate, having uncontrolled population growth is one of the key to foreign investment being applied in the most optimum way. A mismanaged population breeds corruption and strains the national resources, among other things.

More importantly, Wallace wrote:

So how would I convince these businessmen to no longer ignore the Philippines, as they have been doing until now? It’s not an easy task. The personalistic nature of the Philippines, which is so lovely, goes too far when it enters into business in this modern world. The perception by foreigners is that it’s a waste of time and money to bid for competitive projects if a well-connected Filipino is competing against you. Or you must tie up with him, which is not necessarily the corporate strategy you desire. So better to go elsewhere. And the investment figures show this is what has been happening.

A report by the Swiss-based International Institute for Management and Development (IMD) also backed Wallace’s claim. The Philippines dropped from 39th place last year to 41st in a recent World Competitiveness survey. The IMD cited poor infrastructure development as among the major factors that affected the country’s slip from the annual global competitiveness ranking. The report also highlighted the country’s weak points:

The IMD noted that the Philippines was weak in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, start-up procedures for businesses, overall productivity and labor productivity, pupil to teacher ratio and the proliferation of the use of the Internet.

It is crystal clear that even without the 100 percent restriction on foreign investment, we still can’t compete in terms of efficiency, how then can we expect foreign investors to come in?

And as I wrote in my previous article:

In other words, our culture is such a turn-off to foreign investors that if they were to choose between two evils, they would choose a society with a better cultural character. This is something that is not so easy for most Filipinos to accept because they are also a very proud people.

I am beginning to wonder if those who strongly say that economic liberalization is a better alternative to curbing population growth are ready to admit that our dysfunctional culture is largely the reason why we are in this predicament in the first place. We wouldn’t have inexperienced and incompetent public servants if we didn’t have a dysfunctional society.

Supposing the Philippine government gives 100% ownership to foreign investors tomorrow and the latter came rushing in, how can these investors utilize uneducated and unskilled Filipinos? They can’t. The evidence speaks for itself. The Philippines is left behind not just because of the economic provisions but also because of a lot of factors, which include an uncontrolled population growth, which also results in a weak, spread-thin educational system.

This may sound too far-fetched but there are also some Filipinos who are worried that if we curb the population growth now, we might be faced with a scenario in the future of having a shortage of workers or laborers due to a reduced population. First of all, with a predominantly young population of 100 million (and growing fast), a shortage of labor remains a possibility too far out in the future (or just simply too far-out a scenario, to begin with). And even if, we find ourselves in that unlikely scenario of being in line with the First World’s shortage of skilled workers, then we can simply hire skilled migrants from overseas just like what First World countries are doing now. That scenario will be the sweetest revenge after being labeled OFWs for the longest time.

The best solution is still to encourage more Filipinos to become self-sufficient through education and training. With that, the society can breed more entrepreneurs who can put up businesses and generate income and jobs for other people. Foreign investors can help us but we also have to learn to help ourselves first.

The bottom line is, the country cannot manage its growing population. This is evident in:

* More and more Filipinos leaving the Philippines every day for better opportunities overseas.

* More and more Filipinos are sent in harms way overseas.

* More and more Filipinos left behind are starving everyday.

* Most investments going to our ASEAN neighbors

Surely, the present scenario should be enough to convince most Filipinos to urgently get on board any measure that seek to address the growing population of Filipinos who do not have any means of supporting themselves.

print

23 Comments on “The RH Bill: Economic growth alone will not solve overpopulation”

  1. Two more points econ lib-pushers fail to address:

    1) Econ liberalization and the RH Bill are not mutually exclusive.

    2) If you don’t trust the government to spend funding for the RH Bill properly, what makes you trust them to amend the constitution properly? In fact, how can you trust the government to enact ANY bill for that matter?

    1. @The Sound

      Too right! It’s hard to trust them. There’s just no follow-through.

      Looks like we’ll have to go through the eye of the needle to get them interested in amending the constitution anyway.

  2. If the point is that the RH Bill is better than doing nothing at all, I suppose I agree with that. I agree with the sentiment behind it, insofar as any focus on providing better health care is a good thing. And of course I think the dogmatic arguments against it are completely wrong.

    But this bill, although it is a slight improvement after the couple amendments were made, is financially unsound (I don’t mean the free condoms bit, either, like some people we both know keep harping on — that’s a minor thing.) And I’m fairly certain that it will have no impact whatsoever on population growth. I would be happy to be proven wrong, and that in a year’s time or so somebody can show me hard data that demonstrates real improvements that can be directly correlated to this bill. That would be great, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. We’ll see I guess.

    1. My sentiments are kind of the same. Which is why it was a bit difficult to put my position in writing. I also find the cost of the whole exercise a bit steep.

      I just wish they didn’t put Pacmac as the one in charge of grilling Lagman. I would have wanted to hear a sound argument from someone who knew what he was talking about.

  3. I agree with you 100%. What in the world, other than lack of courage, prevents President Aquino from operating through executive order to promote a voluntary (and patriotic) two-child ideal, for the good of the Philippines, or instruct schools to add a course that teaches the importance of personal responsibility – in many things, voting, parenthood, career decisions, work attitude, and sex. It does not have to incite the lascivious-minded priests by being a “sex education” course, or even mention the “curse” word condom. It troubles me mightily that the Catholic Church is against education, preferring its flock to operate in the dark, and bearing a heavy penalty for doing so. It confirms to me that the Church is an antiquated remnant of the Dark Ages.

    Superb article.

    1. I’m with you on the need to instruct schools to teach the importance of personal responsibility. But the religious groups would be up in arms the minute they hear a two-child policy.

      Thanks! I really didn’t want to write about what the Church had to say anymore 😉

      1. @Joe A

        Let me deconstruct your comment:
        (My comment is in parenthesis)

        J: What in the world, other than lack of courage, prevents President Aquino from operating through executive order to promote a voluntary (and patriotic) two-child ideal…

        (Could it be better if Penoy’s executive order is to promote a mandatory instead of voluntary one? To have two children a patriotism? Just like cleanliness is next to Godliness? Something like a bumper sticker?)

        J:… or instruct schools to add a course that teaches the importance of personal responsibility – in many things, voting, parenthood, career decisions, work attitude, and sex.

        (They are all being taught already. Voting and parenthood are already being taught starting from elementary level. Career decisions and work attitude and even sex, though informally, from high school to college. )

        J:It does not have to incite the lascivious-minded priests by being a “sex education” course, or even mention the “curse” word condom.

        (Strong words heh. And a sweeping accusation too. I could only assume that you are really in a very high moral ground. Come to think of it, what do you mean by “It does not have to incite the lascivious-minded priests by being a “sex education” course”?)

        J:It troubles me mightily that the Catholic Church is against education, preferring its flock to operate in the dark, and bearing a heavy penalty for doing so

        (Care to provide sources? It troubles me when one seems to be defaming somebody. Catholic Church is against education? What’s that? Preferring its flock to operate in the dark, and bearing a heavy penalty for doing so. What’s that again?)

        J:It confirms to me that the Church is an antiquated remnant of the Dark Ages.

        (Not unless if we’re going to talk about that other religion where they still stone to death offenders of their religious beliefs, I don’t see anything wrong with the Church having been around already during the Dark Ages.)

        I almost want to borrow your “when the cement is set, it takes a chisel to dent it and I have no interest in whacking at your solid block” in your previous comment. But then, as a curious blog reader, is it too much for me if I’ll ask at least some facts to support your claims?

        1. Thus it comes down to people getting a firmer grip on the difference between being spiritual and being religious.

          Perhaps it is easy to cite examples to argue counter to Joe’s claim that the Church is “against education” say by citing fine Catholic schools like the Ateneo which has an extensive track record of churning out the finest minds on the planet.

          But then you come across such news as the reported persecution of RH Bill supporters in the Ateneo faculty and you wonder whether the dabbling in education by the Church is or is not merely still underpinned by their bigger agenda of indoctrinating young people with their medieval dogma.

      2. We all know that the bible is a medieval or ancient document. For most Christians, which includes me, consider bible as sacred.

        IMO, the Church is not exactly interfering with the RH Bill implementation. The bill is just against the bible’s teachings and one would not expect the Church to just meekly go with it. There was no issue with this family planning with the Church before this bill was introduced.

        The way I see it, since majority here in the Philippines are Catholics, it is that bill that is interfering with what the bible has been teaching to the Catholics – preservation of human lives.

        Perhaps, some of them, particularly those prominent ones, have been emotionally aggressive in defending their religious stand (and so with those pro RH Bill).

        The thing that I don’t like here is those who do not know anything about this RH Bill is using this as their ammunition to attack the Catholic religion.

        My take on this issue as I’ve commented in the other blog:
        http://houseonahill.net/does-size-really-matter/

        “Just bear in mind that I’m just skeptic with this RH Bill not as a Catholic but primarily as a taxpayer who has a polluted mind of the intention of the framers of this bill.

        Example of what I mean is this simple thing – once the bill is approved, the government can use the tax money to buy contraceptives for free distribution to everybody whether they will use it or not. The drug manufacturers will hit a jackpot.

        This is totally different from those who would like to buy contraceptive themselves using their own money for birth control if there is no RH bill.

        The Department of Health has set aside P400 million for the purchase of natural and artificial means of family planning, including two million condoms to be distributed next year. This is with the RH bill still for approval.

        Tsk tsk…

        Do you really believe the RH bill is for those who can’t afford to buy contraceptives?”

        1. @Trosp,

          Just some quick rebuttals to your comments:

          You said:

          The way I see it, since majority here in the Philippines are Catholics, it is that bill that is interfering with what the bible has been teaching to the Catholics – preservation of human lives.


          I say:

          The members of the Catholic Church still have the option of NOT using any contraceptives. And the proponents of the RH bill have always claimed that preservation of human life is exactly what the bill is for: the life of the mother and the family she needs to take care of.

          You said:

          The thing that I don’t like here is those who do not know anything about this RH Bill is using this as their ammunition to attack the Catholic religion. .

          I say:

          I don’t think the CBCP would even receive any criticisms if they weren’t doing their part in condemning or threatening pro-RH bill supporters and treating them as some kind of sinners.

          You said:

          Example of what I mean is this simple thing – once the bill is approved, the government can use the tax money to buy contraceptives for free distribution to everybody whether they will use it or not. The drug manufacturers will hit a jackpot. .

          I say:

          I don’t think that contraceptives will be distributed to just anybody. And of course there would be manufacturers who would benefit from the bill. Much like when Microsoft benefits when someone sets up an office and provides computers for its staff using their software.

          You said:

          This is totally different from those who would like to buy contraceptive themselves using their own money for birth control if there is no RH bill. .

          I say:

          This is assuming that everyone can actually afford to by his or her own artificial contraceptives.

          You asked:

          Do you really believe the RH bill is for those who can’t afford to buy contraceptives? .

          My answer:

          That is supposed to be the essence of the bill. In my opinion, those who can afford their own should not avail of the freebies. It’s the same with how they subsidize tuition fees in UP. Those who are in the high income bracket still have to pay their school fees.

      3. Trosp,

        You make good points. I agree that government handouts are most likely going to get snarled up in poor allocations or corruption.

        As for the Church emphasis on preservation of life, I would merely ask, is there not a “dignity” that should be attached to the lives that are preserved? Thousands of starving, neglected, dirty, unhealthy kids is not my idea of dignity.

      4. Ilda, to explain my side on your short rebuttal:

        “The way I see it, since majority here in the Philippines are Catholics, it is that bill that is interfering with what the bible has been teaching to the Catholics preservation of human lives.”

        They say the Church is interfering with politics in the issue of RH Bill, I say it is the other way around. Time immemorial, the teaching of preserving human lives is an integral part of teaching the bible. The church is not imposing anything to any Catholic that clergies have just invented. Now, they are crafting a law, a bill, that is challenging the gospel.

        (BTW, that paragraph you quoted is just a continuation of my thought on a paragraph before that.)

        Ilda: “And the proponents of the RH bill have always claimed that preservation of human life is exactly what the bill is for: the life of the mother and the family she needs to take care of.”

        That is their claim but is it the reality?

        All the available data tell us that pregnancy related mortality far outnumbered death from taking contraceptives. My problem with those data that I’ve read is they do not tell me the distinction between unwanted and wanted pregnancies. It only tells me that pregnancy related mortality rate is higher in third world than first world country. Seems to me that if preservation of human life is the objective, improvement on pregnancy medical supports and facilities are the issues.

        There are also other reasons for unwanted pregnancies aside from preservation of human life that needs to be mentioned. These are similar with the reasons for an elective abortion:

        – not ready for responsibility
        – blaming the relationship problem
        – mother’s health
        – pregnancy resulting from rape
        – failed birth control method
        – how a child would change their lifestyle
        – they have all the children they wanted

        “The thing that I don’t like here is those who do not know anything about this RH Bill is using this as their ammunition to attack the Catholic religion. .”

        In particular, those secular progressives, the Church stand on RH Bill is a very good fodder in badmouthing the Church.

        Ilda: “I don’t think the CBCP would even receive any criticisms if they weren’t doing their part in condemning or threatening pro-RH bill supporters and treating them as some kind of sinners.”

        As you have said, we are not in a perfect world. There are some personalities in the Church that are over eager in putting up their religious position. As I’ve mentioned earlier in this comment the Church is not imposing anything to any Catholic that clergies have just invented.

        “Example of what I mean is this simple thing – once the bill is approved, the government can use the tax money to buy contraceptives for free distribution to everybody whether they will use it or not. The drug manufacturers will hit a jackpot.”

        Take note of the last line – “The drug manufacturers will hit a jackpot.”

        “Do you really believe the RH bill is for those who can’t afford to buy contraceptives?”

        The budget for next year free condom is PHP 400 million and it is supposed to be given free for those who can’t afford it. How do you think the free condoms were distributed during the past years?

        Getting back to this RH Bill –

        House Bill No. 17, also known as the proposed “Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008,” will cover the following areas:

        * information and access to natural and modern family planning;
        * maternal, infant and child health and nutrition;
        * promotion of breast feeding;
        * prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;
        * adolescent and youth health; prevention and management of reproductive tract infections,
        HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases;
        * elimination of violence against women; counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive
        health;
        * treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers;
        * male involvement and participation in reproductive health;
        * prevention and treatment of infertility; and
        * reproductive health education for the youth.

        Except for the last item, which of the above are not yet in place? (I’m just wondering why contraceptives were not explicitly mentioned.)

        1. @Trosp

          They say the Church is interfering with politics in the issue of RH Bill, I say it is the other way around. Time immemorial, the teaching of preserving human lives is an integral part of teaching the bible. The church is not imposing anything to any Catholic that clergies have just invented. Now, they are crafting a law, a bill, that is challenging the gospel.

          But in this case, the state does not have any religious agenda. They are not even thinking about Catholics or Muslims in the proposed bill. The bill cannot be accused of imposing on the Church when the bill is trying to promote CHOICES.

          They are concerned with the preservation of human lives.

          Seems to me that if preservation of human life is the objective, improvement on pregnancy medical supports and facilities are the issues.

          Unfortunately, our hospitals cannot accommodate everyone. And you also need a huge budget with your proposal. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place? The unskilled members of the population are more of a liability than an asset because they drain the resources but don’t even pay taxes.

          Except for the last item, which of the above are not yet in place? (I’m just wondering why contraceptives were not explicitly mentioned.)

          Are you saying that most of the items in the bill are already in place now?

          Re: contraceptives – that’s right, they didn’t mention it but a lot of people who are opposing the bill are making the bill all about contraceptives when it is so much more than that.

      5. Let’s lighten up the day once in a while.

        Condom funnies (from The Way Things Ought To Be by Rush Limbaugh)

        Noon at ngayon…

        Ad Lib: The 1950s

        Student: You want to see me, Principal Smith?
        Principal: Jimmy, take out your wallet.
        Student: My wallet?
        Principal: What is that imprinted on the side?
        Student: Nothing, sir.
        Principal: Don’t give me that. It’s one of those “c” things.
        Student: A condom?
        Principal: Don’t take it right now. I certainly hope you weren’t planning to use the thing.
        Student: No, sir.
        Principal: YOU WON’T, NOW. I’M TAKING THAT “C” THING AND DESTROYING IT.
        Student: Yes, sir, but just one thing – DON’T TELL MY PARENTS.

        Ad Lib: The 1990s

        Student: You wanted to see me Principal Smith?
        Principal: Jimmy, take out your wallet.
        Student: My wallet?
        Principal: What is that imprinted on the side?
        Student: I don’t have a circle.
        Principal: Just as I thought. PUT THIS IN YOUR WALLET RIGHT NOW.
        Student: This ‘c” thing?
        Principal: It’s a condom, Jimmy, and you better make plans right now to use it.
        Student: Yes, sir, I won’t destroy your faith in me.
        Principal: Good, Jimmy, but just one thing, DON’T TELL YOUR PARENTS.

        Ad Lib: This message has been brought to you by Bungee Condoms. Celebrating forty
        years of progress from being hidden in your Dad’s wallet to be handed out in
        your schools. Bungee Condoms – where quality is more than just a word, it’s a
        slogan.

        Cheers…

        1. Thanks for the joke. But I noticed that the message is basically saying that most teenagers can never be comfortable telling their parents anything to do with their sexual activities.

    2. @Ilda

      You said “But in this case, the state does not have any religious agenda. They are not even thinking about Catholics or Muslims in the proposed bill. The bill cannot be accused of imposing on the Church when the bill is trying to promote CHOICES.”

      Does it mean the bill was created because CHOICES is not properly promoted? Choices as in pro-choice as a politically correct name for those pro-abortion?

      (OT remark –

      Don’t ever call them as pro abortion. They’re pro choice. These are the people who has no compunction in terminating lives of unborn children and similarly, in favor the legalization of euthanasia or death with dignity but they are the same types who promote such ”compassionate” ideas and argues fiercely against the death penalty on the following grounds: 1) that an innocent could be put to death and/or 2) the law should not be sanctioning the killing of another, no matter how guilty, no matter how gruesome the crime that was committed. Try googling ACLU or the meaning of cognitive dissonance.)

      And of course, the state has no religion agenda, and I agree with you. But the Church is seeing it differently and I also agree with them.

      Let’s go back again on these choices as for the reason for using contraceptives:

      – not ready for responsibility
      – blaming the relationship problem
      – mother’s health
      – pregnancy resulting from rape
      – how a child would change their lifestyle
      – they have all the children they wanted

      I would not pick mother’s health as the number one choice. It would be either the not ready for responsibility or how a child would change their lifestyle. Or they have all the children they wanted. Just my 2 cents.

      1. @Trosp

        Does it mean the bill was created because CHOICES is not properly promoted? Choices as in pro-choice as a politically correct name for those pro-abortion?

        Yes, for most Filipinos, only the teachings of the Catholic Church rules. Obviously the bill cannot be named pro-abortion because it is not so and it is currently against the law.

        People take the pill for varying reasons and I find most of the reasons on the list valid.

        I also find Fr Bernard’s stand on the bill welcoming. He wasn’t totally against it and even said that “I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive views of some clerics.” He also said, ” I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible.”

        I hope that both sides can continue with the dialogue.

  4. A nation with many problems like ours; one of which is: we live in a dysfunctional society, run by self-serving dysfunctional leaders. Controlling the rapid population growth is one of our solutions…the intrusion of the Roman Catholic Church, in formulating government policies: is also one of the problems…the Roman Catholic Church is a remnant from our Spanish colonization…the Bishops and the Priests took over the Spanish Friars…
    If the country is conducive to foreign investments. Foreign investors will come…they have the GOLD. HE WHO HAVE THE GOLD MAKES THE RULE…this is what I learned from the famous combover: The Donald Trump…

  5. This boils down to proper resource management. Funds are limited and spending such for population control won’t be cost effective. Why not regulate sexual practice itself? Create laws that deter people from doing the act without the credentials like a requirement of a certain amount of savings in the bank reserved for the future offspring. Regulate romantically biased media and emphasize responsible parenthood and sexual practice. Fine & regulate establishments that violate these laws. This way we can increase revenue and allocate these funds to uplift the economy.

  6. You all are correct, but just in case, it already turned into law, what would be its possible implications to the society? What can be the punishments to those who violate this law? I hope the only scope of this bill would be limited to educating the population on family planning. Aside from that, I believe in empowering the Filipino women as a means of empowering their kids!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.