US study proves Church point vs RH bill – CBCP official

MANILA, Sept. 5, 2011— Pro-reproductive health (RH) bill lawmakers should rethink their position on the measure if only to address maternal deaths in the country, a Catholic Church official said.

Fr. Melvin Castro of the Commission on Family and Life of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines recent study in the US only shows that RH bill is not the answer to maternal mortality.

“Sana e makita ito ng ating leaders sa pamahalaan na sana huwag nang ipagpilitan ang bagong batas na gagastusan pa ng buwis ng mamamayan,” said Castro.

Over the weekend, reports came out saying researchers from the University of Washington in Seattle studying maternal deaths in 181 countries showed that the maternal mortality rate in the Philippines has dropped by 81 percent from 1980 to 2008.

Separately, the 2010 report “Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2008” by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the UN Population Fund, and the World Bank, placed the Philippines’ maternal mortality ratio or MMR at 94 per 100,000 live births in 2008, which is equivalent to 4.6 deaths a day.

This is way lower than the 2004 report placing maternal deaths in the country during the year 2000 at 4,100, or equal to 11.2 a day.

The improvements come while RH bill, which seeks to promote the use of contraceptives in family planning, is pending in Congress and abortion remains illegal in the country.

The study, Castro said, only shows that the problem can be resolved if only the government dedicates its service in serving women, especially pregnant mothers.

“Kung talagang ang pamahalaan ay seryoso na tulungan ang ating mga kababaihan na maging malusog at mapayapa at secure ang pagbubuntis at panganganak ay magagawa yun e kahit walang batas sapagkat iyan e natural na dapat ginagawa ng pamahalaan,” he said.

“Mapapakita talaga dito sa study na ang kailangan ay hindi panibagong batas kundi ang mahalaga ay ang pamahalaan at pribadong sector ay tutukan ito,” Castro added.

To note, RH bill proponents and supporters have been claiming the need to address maternal deaths in the country as a reason to immediately pass the measure. [CBCPNews]

FRANCISCAN SCHOLARS TRANSLATED THE BIBLE INTO COLLOQUIAL JAPANESE!

ASIA - PACIFIC

Franciscans translate Bible into colloquial Japanese

Rome, Italy, August 26 (CNA) .- After 55 years of work, the people of Japan will soon have a translation of the Bible in colloquial Japanese thanks to the work of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum of Tokyo.

The text was recently presented to the prefect of the Vatican Library, Cardinal Raffaele Farina, at the Cathedral of Tokyo.

It is the first time a Japanese translation has been taken from the original languages of the Bible instead of from the Vulgate. In 1958 the translation of the Book of Genesis was published, and in 1979 the entire New Testament was completed. In September 2002 the Book of Jeremiah was finished.

The Japanese Biblical Society and the Franciscans of the United States collaborated in the effort.

Since the initiative began in 1950, the translation efforts have been under the supervision of Father Bernardin Schneider, a native of Kentucky.

ATTY. MARWIL LLASOS AND FILIPINOS 4 LIFE CONTINUE DRIVE AGAINST RH BILL

MANILA, August 30, 2011–As news reports on inconsistencies in statistical numbers and in the agenda of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill and its proponents continue to come out, hundreds of parishioners in Paranaque City got the lowdown on the controversial bill through informative talks delivered by members of Filipinos for Life (F4L).

Following a multi-media presentation on pro-life issues, Anthony James Perez, Anna Cosio and Atty. Marwil Llasos tackled different aspects of House Bill 4244 at an afternoon activity organized by Mary, Mother of Good Counsel Parish and attended by some 300 parishioners, most of them students.

Perez, F4L founder, discussed the reasons for the group’s opposition to the bill, explaining why the legislative measure was not the solution to the country’s problems.

Citing incontestable statistics, Perez debunked the overpopulation myth on which population control advocates have based their claims.

Nurse instructor Cosio tackled the medical and health-related issues surrounding the bill. Armed with science-based research and findings, she proved that human life starts at fertilization–or the meeting of the egg and sperm cells.

As part of the RH bill is the taxpayer-funded procurement and distribution of artificial contraceptives, Cosio also went into a discussion of the harmful–and sometimes fatal–effects of birth control drugs and devices on women.

Tackling the moral, constitutional and legal aspects was Llasos, who declared that the bill was anti-God, anti-human and anti-Filipino. Included in the lawyer’s presentation were explanations as to the constitutional infirmities of portions of the bill.

As the talks concluded, a woman among the participants brought up the situation of an unmarried friend who had considered getting rid of her unborn baby, given that the child’s father refused to acknowledge his responsibility to the mother and child.

Llasos’ advice to the woman was to tell her friend to inform her parents about the situation. Abortion is not an option, he added, and there are government, private and religious institutions that can help women in such situations.

The lawyer also offered F4L’s help in facilitating adoption placement for the baby.

Meanwhile, members of the Speakers’ Bureau of the Vicariate of Real Infanta and General Nakar, Prelature of Infanta, Quezon province boosted their understanding of the issues pertaining to the culture of life through a recent seminar about the RH bill.

As part of the family and life ministry’s series of trainors’ training seminars, Buhay Partylist pro-life advocacy staff Jose Descallar delivered a day-long talk on issues pertaining to the legislative measure to 45 participants–including school principals, teachers and city councilors–upon the invitation of the prelature’s Vicar-General Fr. Mario Establecida.

According to Descallar, the open forum was quite interesting due to questions about the “fine-tuned” version of the bill, supposedly an initiative of Malacanang.

“Hindi pa din okey sa inyo ‘yung amendments na ginagawa dun sabill?” queried one of the participants.

Descallar explained that such amendments changed nothing because “it’s the bill’s framework that’s the problem. Even if you amend it and all that’s left are four sections–declaration of policy, guiding principles, appropriations, and the penal provisions–hindi pa din okey ‘yan. It is still within the same framework.”

H.B. 4244, authored by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, continues to face a growing opposition due to its mandate of taxpayer-funded procurement and distribution of a “full range” of birth control drugs and devices including abortifacients, six-year sex education program from Grade 5 to 4th year high school in all schools as well as among out-of-school youth, provision of birth control drugs, devices and services by employers to their employees, and punitive measures for those who speak out against the bill. (CBCP for Life)

Multiple studies show declining number of maternal deaths; ‘11 a day’ an outdated statistic

MANILA, August 30, 2011–Indeed, maternal deaths are a problem requiring a real solution. But is it true that 11 women die each day due to childbirth? Based on hard statistics from the Philippine government, international agencies, and experts abroad, the answer is no.

In fact, data from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) show that the real figure ranges from just 4.8 to 8.3 based on 2008 figures, the latest available. That year, the maternal mortality ratio was estimated at 99-169 per 100,000 live births.

A total of 1,784,316 live births were recorded in the country in 2008.

The NSCB defines maternal mortality ratio or MMR as the “ratio between the number of women who died (for reasons of pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium) to the number of reported live births in a given year, expressed as the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.”

The period 1990 to 2010 showed a marked decline in maternal mortality, government data showed. MMR declined by 21% from 121 in 1990, to just 95 in 2010, even in the absence of a “reproductive health” (RH) law.

What other studies show

For those who prefer not to rely solely on government statistics, two separate studies released in 2010 provide even lower estimates of MMR for the Philippines.

“Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2008,” with estimates developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Bank, estimated the Philippines’ MMR at 94 per 100,000 live births in 2008, equivalent to 4.6 a day.

The same report estimated maternal deaths at 2,100 in 2008, and based on this figure, there were 5.75 deaths a day.

The Philippines is in fact “making progress” in reducing maternal mortality, with the estimated MMR plunging by 48% – nearly half – from 1990 to 2008, the report by five international agencies showed.

The Philippines also did a better job of reducing maternal deaths – in terms of the percentage drop in MMR – than Russia, Malaysia, Hungary, Israel, and even Germany, the report indicated.

Maternal death is defined by the WHO as the “death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes.”

Meanwhile the study “Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980–2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5,” published in the respected journal The Lancet and funded by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, placed the Philippines’ maternal mortality ratio at just 84 per 100,000 live births.

This is equivalent to 4.1 deaths per day – a far cry from the 11 a day that RH lobbyists are using in their bid to push for the controversial and divisive RH bill.

The Lancet article was written by Margaret Hogan, Kyle Foreman, Mohsen Naghavi, Stephanie Ahn, Mengru Wang, Susanna Makela, Alan Lopez, Rafael Lozano, and Christopher J. L. Murray. Most of the researchers came from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation of the University of Washington in Seattle.

Based on their data, the Philippines, even without an RH law, reduced its MMR by 81% between 1980 and 2008, and 52% between 1990 and 2008.

“Our analysis of all available data for maternal mortality from 1980 to 2008 for 181 countries has shown a substantial decline in maternal death,” the researchers concluded.

“Compared with previous assessments of maternal mortality, we have narrowed the uncertainty around global and national estimates of the MMR. This improved accuracy is a result of an extensive database and the use of analytical methods with increased explanatory power and improved out-of-sample predictive validity,” they added.

The source of ‘11 maternal deaths a day’

Now, where did the “11 a day” figure come from? It is from the outdated report “Maternal Mortality in 2000: Estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA.”

It estimated the Philippines’ MMR at 200 in the year 2000, equivalent to 9.8 a day. It placed the number of maternal deaths that year at 4,100, or 11.2 a day.

The report, however, is seven years old, published way back in 2004.

The outdated report carried an important caveat: “The 2000 estimates cannot be used to analyze trends because of the wide margins of uncertainty associated with the estimates.”

“The margins of uncertainty associated with the estimated MMRs are very large, and the estimates should not, therefore, be used to monitor trends in the short term. In addition, cross country comparisons should be treated with considerable circumspection because different strategies have been used to derive the estimates for different countries, making it difficult to draw comparisons,” the 2004 report said.

The same international agencies, in their 2010 report, pointed out that the latest (2008) estimates are more reliable.

“[I]t should be noted that the data and methods have improved over time. The 2008 estimates should not be compared with those from the previous exercises to assess changes in time. Trends in maternal mortality calculated using the same improved methodology and presented for years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2008 in this report show the changes over time.” (Dominic Francisco)

Pro-life group hits Akbayan for malicious tirade vs. Sotto

MANILA, August 24, 2011–A pro-life organization on Wednesday criticized a partylist group for waging a vicious social networking demolition job on Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, saying its claims were “narrow-minded” and “out of context.”

In a statement on the group’s website, Filipinos For Life (F4L)said, “Sotto was merely questioning the basis of the oft-repeated statistic of 11 maternal deaths a day, in the context of a legislative debate on a bill that seeks to establish a wide-ranging national policy.”

“It is therefore fair to examine the basis of this bill. There is nothing to apologize for,” the F4L statement said.

“In the first place, there was no derogatory statement on women, and the sarcasm, if at all, is directed at pro-RH lobby groups, some of them pro-abortion, that routinely peddle this statistic. The supposed offense is in the creative, nay, malicious imagination of Akbayan’s propagandists,” the group said.

It also criticized former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel for maligning Sotto.

“May we remind former Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel to elevate the level of the debate on RH. Her repeated references in social networks to an incident decades ago involving a dead movie starlet are uncalled for and below the belt,” it said.

F4L said that based on its own estimates, the correct figure is 4.8 maternal deaths a day, based on 2008 data from the National Statistics Office and the National Statistical Coordination Board.

“This assumes a maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 99 per 100,000 live births and 1.784 million live births in 2008. Assuming a high MMR of 169 per 100,000 live births, the figure is 8.3,” the group said.

F4L clarified that it does not downplay the problem of maternal deaths, stating that “it is a problem that needs concrete solutions, like more birthing centers and midwives. But we should guard against the excessive emotional use of the outdated statistic to influence Philippine government policy.”

The group chided Akbayan for covering up the dangerous side effects of contraceptives.

“If Akbayan is really pro-women, it should tell its women constituents that contraceptive pills that would be distributed for free under the RH bill are considered by a WHO agency as a Level 1 carcinogen. Pills, according to reputable literature produced by entities such as the US National Cancer Institute and the Mayo Clinic increase the risk of breast and other cancers.”

“If Akbayan really is pro-women, it should tell mothers that the pills it wants them to ingest daily could expel a fertilized ovum, which is already a human being. It should inform women that pills don’t always prevent ovulation,” it continued. “In case the pills do not prevent ovulation and fertilization occurs, the pills have been proven to create an environment that is hostile to the beginning of life. Akbayan’s lawmakers should be reminded of what the Constitution says about the protection of the unborn.” (CBCP for Life)

10 laws have the same provisions as RH bill - Senator Vicente Sotto

10 laws have the same provisions as RH bill - Sotto

By Marvin Sy (The Philippine Star) Updated August 30, 2011 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - In going all out against the proposed Reproductive Health (RH) bill, Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III showed that there were at least 10 laws and executive issuances that already contained all the objectives envisioned by the measure.

For two straight days, Sotto took on the sponsors of the RH bill in the Senate, Pia Cayetano and Miriam Defensor Santiago, both lawyers and strong advocates of women’s rights and welfare.

While the initial arguments centered on the issue of contraceptives and their supposed use as abortifacients, which the sponsors claimed was practically an issue of religious beliefs, Sotto’s interpellation focused on his claim that the bill merely repeats provisions already found in existing laws.

Sotto has been arguing that the Department of Health (DOH) is already implementing various programs on reproductive health and has the funding necessary to fulfill this mandate, so coming up with yet another law to do the same thing would be unnecessary.

He took up the six objectives of the RH bill and showed that there were several laws that were enacted in the past to fulfill them.

The RH bill has the following objectives: to save the lives of mothers and the unborn; provide Filipinos with information on reproductive health so they can make informed and intelligent decisions; provide access to health care facilities and skilled health professionals before, during and after delivery; address HIV and other sexually-transmitted diseases; provide access to different family planning methods; and institutionalize age and development appropriate reproductive health education.

According to Sotto, there are laws that go back to the Marcos administration and some authored by the current sponsors that are meant to address all those objectives of the RH bill.

The most prominent of these laws is Republic Act No. 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women, which Sotto noted already addresses all six objectives of the RH bill.

He also cited R.A. 8504 or the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998, R.A. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act, R.A. 7875 or the National Health Insurance Act of 1995 and R.A. 9501 or the Cheaper Medicines Act as containing various provisions related to the objectives of the RH bill.

Presidential Decrees 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code and 965 which requires applicants for marriage licenses to receive instructions on family planning and responsible parenthood were laws that have been around since the Marcos administration.

Administrative Order 2008-0029 of the DOH provides the strategy to rapidly reduce maternal and neonatal mortality and remains in place to this day.

The current administration has continued its support for these objectives by approving the appropriations in the national budget and through the issuance of executive orders to ensure these are achieved.

Sotto noted that the 2011 General Appropriations Act contains P153.978 million for health promotion, another P232.919 million for health human resource development and P7.116 billion for the health facilities enhancement program.

This is on top of the conditional cash transfer program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development which requires its recipients to get prenatal care, assisted childbirth by skilled or professionals, attendance in family planning sessions and regular preventive health check ups and vaccines for children zero to five years of age.

President Aquino, who has thrown in his support behind the RH bill, has also issued Administrative Orders 2010-0010 or the revised policy on micronutrient supplementation to support achievement of 2015 Millennium Development Goal targets to reduce under-five and maternal deaths and address micronutrient needs of other population groups; and 2010-0036 also known as the Aquino health agenda, achieving universal health care for all Filipinos.

Sotto added that there are other programs that exist for the purpose of reproductive health such as the women’s health and safe motherhood project and the family planning program of the DOH.

He said that even the Local Government Code contains a provision for local government units to provide their own basic services and facilities, including primary health care and maternal and child care.

The Labor Code provides incentives for family planning while R.A. 7883 or the Barangay Health Workers Benefits and Incentives Act of 1995 provides health education, training of barangay health workers, community building and organizing.

Sotto admitted that there is much to be desired as far as the enhancement of health facilities are concerned but the government is getting there already.

“The DOH is the best argument against RH bill because they are practically doing everything that the RH bill wants to do. This is already in place, no debates, no problems, no additional funding needed because it’s all there,” Sotto said.

“There is no need for the RH bill. Health Secretary (Enrique) Ona said it clearly, with or without the bill, they are doing it (reproductive health programs),” he added.

Santiago argued that there is no law prohibiting the repeat of what an existing law already states.

“There is no prohibition against redundant provisions in different bills. Plus, it could be possible that one bill is general in nature while the RH bill is specific in nature, and the rule of statutory construction is when one bill is general in nature and another is specific in nature, the courts will uphold the law that is specific in nature,” Santiago said.

“So, in effect, even if there were similar or identical provisions, that is simply an insurance that when the bill is brought to court, the Supreme Court will be persuaded by the position because the bills succeeding each other are repetitions of each other, meaning to say the lawmakers have very strong opinions about a certain provisions in the bill,” she added.