Family Planning Method

FAMILY PLANNING METHOD
Abstinence
Effectiveness (chances of NOT getting pregnant): 100%
What is Abstinence?
Refraining from vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse.
Advantages of Abstinence:
No risk of unintended pregnancy.
No risk of becoming infected with a sexually transmitted disease.
Opportunities to express feelings and affection for another in other ways.
Disadvantages of Abstinence:
Both partners must agree to honor this choice.
Partners must have excellent communication skills; yes must mean yes and no must mean no.
May need emergency contraceptive method if this method fails.
How do I decide?
Are you comfortable expressing your feelings for another in nonsexual ways?
Is your partner in agreement?
Does this method fit with your religious or moral beliefs?
Is abstinence the best decision for you?
Do you want to discuss this method with your clinician, family planning clinic staff, husband, partner, friend, or family member?
In the Philadelphia area, click here for a list of local family planning clinics. Outside of Philadelphia, please click here for a clinic near you.
Cervical Cap
Effectiveness (chances of NOT getting pregnant): 60-90 %
What is the cervical cap?
It is a barrier contraceptive method.
A soft rubber cup like device that fits snuggly around the base of the cervix.
It is used with spermicide for prolonged and additional pregnancy prevention.
What are the advantages of the cervical cap?
Simple to use.
No serious side effects.
Does not require partner involvement.
Good for persons who do not have sex on a regular basis.
May decrease risks of some sexually transmitted diseases.
Provides contraceptive protection for up to 48 hours, no matter how many times

lovemaking occurs.
Does not interrupt lovemaking.
Does not interfere with breast-feeding.
What are the disadvantages of the cervical cap?
Consistent and correct use is required to prevent pregnancy.
Persons with allergies to latex or spermicides cannot use.
Remains in vagina for at least 6 hours after intercourse.
Possible risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome, if worn longer than 48 hours.
May experience vaginal odor with prolonged use.
How Do I Decide?
Are you comfortable inserting a medical device into your vagina?
Do you have sex frequently (more than three times weekly)? If so, you may want to use another method.
Are you sensitive or allergic to latex or spermicidal products?
Is the cervical cap the best method for you?
Condom (Male)
Effectiveness (chances of NOT getting pregnant): 86 - 97%
What is a male condom?
Made out of latex (rubber), but polyurethane and tactylon (both plastic) are available.
Over the counter barrier method of birth control.
Advantages of the male condom:
Easy to get and relatively inexpensive.
Can be discontinued at any time.
Provides some protection from sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.
Reliable method for people who cannot use hormonal birth control methods.
Responsibility of both partners.
Can be purchased without a prescription.
Disadvantages of the male condom; you may experience the following:
Non-cooperative partner.
Some irritation or sensitivity to latex.
Difficulty using condoms correctly.
Must use a new condom with every sex act.
Some men say it reduces sexual feelings.
Must be rolled onto an erect penis before sexual intercourse, can interrupt foreplay.
Spillage or leaking of sperm is possible if condom is put on or removed incorrectly.
How Should I decide?
Will you remember to use it every time you have sex?
Will your partner be cooperative in the use of this method?
Can you or your partner maintain an erection?
Is the condom the best method for you?
Do you want to discuss this method with your clinician, family planning clinic staff,
partner, friend, or family member?
Depo-Provera ("The Shot")

Effectiveness (chances of NOT getting pregnant): More than 99%
What is Depo-Provera?
It is an injection given every 3 months.
It contains synthetic progesterone.
It stops ovulation, and/or thickens the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from passing through.
It is a reversible method of birth control given only by prescription.
Advantages of Depo-Provera:
Does not interfere with sex.
Only need to get a shot 4 times a year.
May stop menses or make them very light.
Excellent alternative for women 35 and older who smoke.
Reduces the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer.
Disadvantages of Depo-Provera:
Irregular or unpredictable bleeding or spotting.
Possible hair loss.
Weight gain, especially right after pregnancy.
It may delay your chances of getting pregnant after the shots are stopped. It can take between six and eighteen months for
menstruation and ovulation to return consistently. This does not mean that you are protected from pregnancy during this time. Use
alternate protection, such as condoms.
Does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (see warning below).
You must go to the clinic or doctor's office 4 times a year.
How Do I Decide?
Is getting a shot a problem for you?
Do you have any medical problems that will prevent you from taking Depo-Provera?
Do you have liver disease, breast cancer or blood clots in your arms, legs or lungs?
Do you have sex frequently or not very often, if not very often do you want extra
hormones in your body all the time?
Does this method fit with your religious, or moral beliefs?
Is the Depo-Provera shot the best decision for you?
husband, partner, friend, or family member?
REMINDER: This method does not provide any protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) including HIV and Hepatitis B.
Using a condom consistently can help to protect you from STD's.
Diaphragm
Effectiveness (chances of NOT getting pregnant): 80-94% (during first year of use and whether or not you have delivered a child)
What is a diaphragm?
Barrier type birth control method prescribed by your family planning clinician.
A dome shaped rubber cup with flexible rim that covers the cervix and is inserted into the vagina before intercourse.
Used in combination with spermicidal jelly or cream.
Advantages of the diaphragm:
Simple to use.
No serious systemic side effects.
Good for persons who do not have sex on a regular basis.
Decreases risk of some sexually transmitted diseases.
Decreases risk of cervical cancer.
Disadvantages of the diaphragm:
Consistent and correct use is required to prevent pregnancy.
Persons with allergies to latex or spermicides cannot use.
Increased risks for developing urinary tract infections (UTI's).
Remains in vagina for at least 6 hours after intercourse.
Repeated sexual intercourse requires additional spermicide.
Must remove within 24 hours to avoid risk of toxic shock syndrome (TSS).
Must replace diaphragm every two years.
How Do I Decide?
Are you comfortable touching your vagina?
Are you comfortable inserting a medical device into your vagina?
Do you have sex frequently (more than three times weekly)? If so you may want to use another method.
Are you sensitive or allergic to latex or spermicidal products?
Is the diaphragm the best method for you?
ECP or Emergency Contraceptive Pills
Effectiveness (chance of NOT getting pregnant): 74 % - 89%
What is the ECP or Emergency Contraceptive Pills?
An emergency contraceptive method used after sexual intercourse to prevent pregnancy.
Is most effective when used within 12 hours of unprotected intercourse or contraceptive accident.
ECP can be used up to 72 hours or three days after unprotected sex.
ECP only works if a woman is not already pregnant.
Interferes with egg development.
Prevents or delays ovulation.
Inhibits fertilization.
Advantages of ECP or Emergency Contraceptive Pills:
Only method of contraception used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex.
Only method used to prevent pregnancy after male condom slipped, broke, or leaked.
Only method used to prevent pregnancy after a woman's diaphragm or cervical cap was inserted incorrectly, removed too early, or
found to be torn.
Only method used to prevent pregnancy after a woman has missed one or more of oral contraceptives.
Only method used to prevent pregnancy when a female condom was inserted or
removed incorrectly.
Method may be obtained ahead of time from a family planning clinician to be used when needed. Plan B, a brand name for ECP, is
also available at a pharmacy. Women and men who are 18 or older can now purchase Plan B over the counter with proof of age. In
most states, including Pennsylvania, women 17 or under will still need a prescription from a clinician for Plan B or other ECP
methods.
Disadvantages of ECP or Emergency Contraceptive Pills:
Does not work if already pregnant.
Limited time frame (ECP must be used within 72 hours or three days after unprotected sex). Is not an ongoing method of
contraception.
Nausea occurs in 23% to 50 % of women who use this method (medications to prevent nausea are available).
Vomiting occurs in 5 to 25% of women who use this method (medications to prevent vomiting are available).
Ectopic (tubal) pregnancy may be a possible result.
ECP changes the amount, duration, and timing of the next menstrual period in about 10 to 15% of women treated.
There is still a chance of pregnancy. If menstrual cycle does not start in 7 days, consider pregnancy and contact your family planning
clinician.
Does not provide protection from sexually transmitted diseases.
How do I decide?
Do you want to be pregnant?
Do you understand that there is a possibility of pregnancy after taking ECP?
Do you have unprotected sex frequently?
Is 72 hours enough time for you to make a decision and get ECP?
For more information about ECP, check out Not-2-Late.com, 1-888-NOT-2-LATE or 1-800-330-1271. In the Philadelphia area, click here for a
list of local family planning clinics. Outside of Philadelphia, please click here for a clinic near you. Visit ec.princeton.edu to see the list of
resources.
Female Condom
Effectiveness (chances of NOT getting pregnant): 79% - 95%
What is the female condom?
Over the counter barrier method of birth control.
It is polyurethane (plastic) sheath with an inner ring that fits inside the vagina, around the cervix (like the diaphragm) and an outer
ring that covers the outside labia.
After the man ejaculates, you must twist the end closed and gently pull from the vagina.
Advantages of the female condoms:
Can be inserted into the vagina up to eight hours before sexual intercourse.
Can be used with spermicides to increase STD protection.
Provides protection against some sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.
Can be used by people allergic to latex or spermicides or by those who can't take
hormones.
Made from polyurethane plastic, which conducts body heat.
Erection unnecessary to keep female condom in place.
Some women and men have an increased sensitivity or "natural" feel compared to
male condoms.
Can be purchased without a prescription.
Disadvantages of the female condoms:

You may experience the following:
Difficulty inserting and/or keeping in place.
Cannot be combined with male condoms as they pull each other off.
May be noisy (add more lubricant if this is a problem).
May irritate vagina or penis.
More expensive than male latex condoms.
Must be used every time you have sex.
After the man ejaculates, you must twist the end close and gently pull from the vagina.
How do I decide?
Are you comfortable touching your vaginal area?
Will you remember to use it every time you have sex?
Is the female condom the best method for you?
REMINDER: This method provides some protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) including HIV and Hepatitis B. Using
condoms consistently can help provide protection from STD's.
Female Sterilization
What is female sterilization?
A surgical intervention that mechanically blocks the fallopian tube to prevent the sperm
and egg from uniting.
Advantages of female sterilization:
Very reliable and effective method of contraception.
Permanent method.
No long term side effects.
Nothing to remember or buy.
Disadvantages of female sterilization:
Permanent method.
Difficult and expensive to reverse surgical procedure.
Requires skilled surgeon to perform procedure.
Expensive procedure.
Possible ectopic (tubal) pregnancy if method fails.
No protection against sexually transmitted diseases.
How do I decide?
Are you sure you do not want any more children?
Are you willing to have an operation to prevent pregnancy?
Have you considered other methods?
Your decision for female sterilization should be what is best for you.
Intrauterine Device ("IUD")
Effectiveness (chances of NOT getting pregnant): 98% - 99%
What is an IUD?
Small plastic device which is placed in the uterus by a clinician.
Prevents sperm from fertilizing egg.
Some contain synthetic progesterone others have copper on them.
It is a reversible method of birth control given only by prescription.
Advantages of the IUD:
Easy to use, low maintenance method.
Easily inserted and removed in a clinic or doctor's office.
Has no systemic side effects.
Depending on the type they can be left in place 1, 5, or 10 years.
Reduces the risk of tubal pregnancy.
Disadvantages of the IUD:
Must be inserted and removed in a clinic or doctor's office.
Easily inserted and removed in a clinic or doctor's office.
May be some cramping or pain at the time of insertion.
May experience increased bleeding or cramping during periods.
May experience spotting between periods.
Should not be used by women with multiple sex partners because this increases
exposure to STD's, which significantly increases the risk of pelvic inflammatory
disease (PID).
How do I decide?
Do you have sex frequently? (The IUD functions 24 hours a day.)
Decide if it fits your birth control needs.
Is the IUD the best method for you?
In the Philadelphia area, click here for a

list of local family planning clinics. Outside of Philadelphia, please click here for a clinic
near you.
Norplant
What is Norplant?
Six capsules containing synthetic hormones inserted under the skin of your upper arm.
Capsules slowly release hormones into the bloodstream over a 5-year period.
These hormones stop the ovaries from releasing an egg each month.
Hormones also thicken mucus in the cervix (opening to the uterus), stopping sperm from entering it.
Reversible method of birth control.
Advantages of Norplant:
Long term method can stay in for 5 years.
After 12 to 18 months of using this method, periods usually stop.
Can be removed anytime, and the woman can become pregnant right away.
Reduces risk of ovarian or endometrial cancer.
Disadvantages of Norplant:
You may experience spotting between periods, light periods, longer periods, or no
periods.
You may experience weight gain and hair loss.
It is expensive anywhere between $500 and $700 depending on where you go (at a Title X Federally supported family planning clinic
fees are based on family size and income, so fees could range from $0 to $700).
It requires minor surgery for insertion and removal of the capsules (done in the clinic or doctor's office).
Effectiveness is lowered by most antiseizure medications.
How do I decide?
Is having a small scar and having the capsules in your body a problem for you?
Do you have any medical problems such as breast cancer, liver, or heart disease that will prevent you from using this method?
Do you have sex frequently or not very often? If not very often, do you want extrahormones in your body all the time?
Is the Norplant method best for you?
NuvaRing ("The Ring")
Effectiveness
99% chance of NOT getting pregnant
Less than 1 per 100 women may become pregnant with proper use.
What is the NuvaRing?
The NuvaRing is a comfortable, flexible contraceptive ring that is about two inches in diameter and contains synthetic low dose
hormones (progestin and estrogen); these hormones are similar to those produced by a womens body.
The NuvaRing is placed directly into the vagina; hormones are released from the ring and are directly absorbed through the walls of
the vagina then distributed into the bloodstream.
Pregnancy is prevented because the ring prevents the ovaries from producing mature eggs.
The ring is a reversible method of birth control available only by prescription.
Advantages of NuvaRing
Does not interfere with sex. Ability to remove the ring at leisure.
No need to remember to put it on daily/weekly. Month long protection (3 weeks in, 1 week out)
Exact positioning of the NuvaRing is not critical; however the ring should be placed high in the vault of the vagina.
Muscles within the vagina allow the ring to stay in place during sex and/or exercise.
Reduces menstrual flow and cramping.
Decreases acne outbreaks.
Ability to become pregnant immediately after discontinued use, if seeking pregnancy.
Disadvantages of NuvaRing
Not a good choice if patient is uncomfortable with touching herself.
Increased risk of heart attack, stroke, or blood clots (in lungs, legs, or arms), especially if you smoke more than 15 cigarettes a day, or
are over 35 and smoke.
Patient may experience vagina discomfort and discharge.
If the ring is kept out of the vagina longer than 3 hours on any day during the 21 day period (3weeks) pregnancy can occur; therefore a
back-up method (condoms) is recommended for 7 days.
Does not prevent sexually transmitted diseases (see warning below).
For more detailed information and how to use the ring click here.
How Do I Decide?
Are you comfortable touching your genitalia to place and remove the ring?
Are you smoking more than 15 cigarettes a day? If yes this method may not be good for you.
Do you have liver disease, breast cancer and/or blood clots in lungs, legs, or arms?
Are you taking any medications that may interfere with the effectiveness of the ring? (Consult with a clinician)
Ortho Evra ("The Patch")
Effectiveness
95% - 99% chance of NOT getting pregnant
Between 1 and 5 per 100 women may become pregnant with proper use.
What is the Patch?
The Patch contains synthetic hormones (progesterone and estrogen); these hormones are similar to those produced by a womens
body.
The patch is placed directly on the skin; these hormones are released from the patch directly through the skin into the bloodstream.
Pregnancy is prevented because the patch stops ovulation and/or thickens the cervical mucus and stops sperm from passing through.
The patch is a reversible method of birth control available only by prescription.
The patch is less effective in women weighting more than 198lbs.
Advantages of the Patch
No need to remember to put it on daily. Apply a new patch once a week.
Ability to become pregnant immediately after discontinued use, if seeking pregnancy.
Disadvantages of the Patch
May cause slight skin irritation at the patch site.
Possible mood swings or depression.
Women are encouraged not to use creams, lotions, or oils near the patch site these agents may cause the patch to detach.

Recent news stories overstate the blood clot risk from the Ortho Evra contraceptive patch, experts tell WebMD. For more
information visit:
How Do I Decide?
Can you remember to put on a new patch once a week?
Are you smoking more than 15 cigarettes a day? If yes this method may not be good for you.
Oral Contraceptives ("The Pill")
Effectiveness
95% - 99% chance of NOT getting pregnant.
Between 1-5 per 100 women may become pregnant with proper use.
What is the Pill?
Synthetic hormones (progesterone and/or estrogen) like those produced by the body to regulate the menstrual cycle.
Pregnancy is prevented because the pill stops ovulation and/or thickens the cervical
mucus by stopping sperm from passing through.
Reversible method of birth control given only by prescription.
Advantages of the Pill:
Doesn't interfere with sex.
Regulates the menstrual cycle.
Most popular method used.
Disadvantages of the Pill:
Must be taken every day at the same time each day.
Possible mood swings or depression.
May decrease sexual desire.
Can not be used if you are 35 or older and smoke.
How do I decide?
Can you remember to take a pill every day?
Do you have sex frequently or not very often?If not very often, do you want to take a pill every day?
Are there some medical problems that prevent you from taking the pill?
Is the pill the best method for you?
Vaginal Spermicides
Effectiveness (chances of NOT getting pregnant): 50-95% (among typical users in the first year of use)
What are vaginal spermicides?
A chemical birth control method that kills sperm and prevents pregnancy.
Comes in the form of gel, foam, cream, film, suppository, or tablet.
Advantages of vaginal spermicides:
A relatively safe contraceptive method when combined with the use of a barrier method (condom, diaphragm, cervical cap).
May lower the chance of becoming infected with a bacterial sexually transmitted disease.
Can be purchased without prescription.
Depending on the amount purchased is relatively inexpensive.
Immediate protection is available.
Good method for persons who have sexual intercourse infrequently or not very often.
Simple back up method for women waiting to start the pill or have an IUD inserted, or for forgetting to take pill or running out of pills.
Provides lubrication during intercourse especially with condom use.
Male partner does not need to be involved in decision to use product.
Does not interfere with breast feeding.
Disadvantages of vaginal spermicides:
Allergic reactions or hypersensitivity to ingredients may occur.
Some persons may have difficulty inserting properly.
Abnormal vaginal anatomy (e.g. prolapsed uterus) may interfere with proper insertion.
Poor protection from HIV exposure.
How do I decide?
Are you sensitive or allergic to ingredients in product?
Do you have sexual intercourse infrequently? This may a good choice for you.
Are you comfortable touching your vagina?
Do you want to use vaginal spermicides as a backup?
Your decision should be what is best for you.
Vasectomy (Male Sterilization)
Effectiveness (chances of NOT getting pregnant): 99% or more
What is a Vasectomy?
A surgical procedure that prevents pregnancy by blocking the passage of sperm into the
ejaculated seminal fluid (cum).
Advantages of Vasectomy:
Permanent method of contraceptive.
Highly effective method.
Very safe surgical procedure.
Removes the responsibility of contraception from the woman.
No significant long term side effects.
Highly acceptable method.
A no scalpel Vasectomy is also available.
Disadvantages of Vasectomy:
Protection for the male only (females are at risk for pregnancy).
Usually irreversible.
Requires skilled medical personnel.
Lack of protection from sexually transmitted diseases and infections, including HIV.
Initial cost may be expensive, some times considered an elective procedure, and
requires self-pay. However, the long term cost benefits are great.
Although unproven, serious long-term effects are possible.
How do I decide?
Are you sure you do not want any more children?
Can you tolerate a surgical procedure?
Can you afford the procedure?
Have other methods been considered?
Does this method fit your religious or moral beliefs?
Is a Vasectomy the best decision for you?
partner, friend, or family member?
Withdrawal (Coitus Interruptus)
Effectiveness (chance of NOT getting pregnant): 81% - 96%
What is Withdrawal?
A contraceptive method that prevents fertilization by preventing the contact between the sperm and egg.
Couple engages in penile-vaginal intercourse until ejaculation is about to occur.
The male partner withdraws his penis from the vagina and away from the external
genitalia of the female partner.
Advantages of Withdrawal:
Costs nothing.
Requires no devices.
Involves no chemicals.
Available in any situation.
Disadvantages of Withdrawal:
Chances of getting pregnant with this method are much higher than with any other
method.
Some men have difficulty telling when they will ejaculate.
Some men may not withdraw in sufficient time.
Interruption of the excitement or plateau phase of the sexual response cycle may
decrease pleasurable experience.
High risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and infections.
How do I decide?
Is the risk of getting pregnant too large?
What about the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease?
Does the method fit with your religious or moral beliefs?
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012

The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10354), informally known as
the Reproductive Health Law or RH Law, is a law in the Philippines, which guarantees universal access to methods
on contraception, fertility control, sexual education, and maternal care.
While there is general agreement about its provisions on maternal and child health, there is great debate on its mandate
that the Philippine government and the private sector will fund and undertake widespread distribution of family planning
devices such as condoms, birth control pills, and IUDs, as the government continues to disseminate information on their
use through all health care centers.
Passage of the legislation was controversial and highly divisive, with experts, academics, religious institutions, and major
political figures declaring their support or opposition while it was pending in the legislature. Heated debates and rallies
both supporting and opposing the RH Bill took place nationwide.
The Supreme Court delayed implementation of the law in March 2013 in response to challenges. On April 8, 2014, the
Court ruled that the law was "not unconstitutional" but struck down eight provisions partially or in full. [2]
Background
History
According to the Senate Policy Brief titled "Promoting Reproductive Health", the history of reproductive health in the
Philippines dates back to 1967 when leaders of 12 countries including the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcossigned the
Declaration on Population.[3][4] The Philippines agreed that the population problem should be considered as the principal
element for long-term economic development. Thus, the Population Commission was created to push for a lower family
size norm and provide information and services to lower fertility rates. [5]
Starting 1967, the USAID began shouldering 80% of the total family planning commodities (contraceptives) of the country,
which amounted to $3 million annually. In 1975, the United States adopted as its policy the National Security Study
Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200).
The policy gives "paramount importance" to population control measures and the promotion of contraception among 13
populous countries, including the Philippines to control rapid population growth which they deem to be inimical to the
sociopolitical and economic growth of these countries and to the national interests of the United States, since the "U.S.
economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad", and these countries can produce
destabilizing opposition forces against the United States. It recommends the U.S. leadership to "influence national
leaders" and that "improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased
emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA, and USAID. [6]
Different presidents had different points of emphasis. President Ferdinand Marcos pushed for a systematic distribution of
contraceptives all over the country, a policy that was called "coercive", by its leading administrator.[4] The Corazon
Aquino administration focused on giving couples the right to have the number of children they prefer, while Fidel V.
Ramos shifted from population control to population management. Joseph Estrada used mixed methods of reducing
fertility rates, while Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo focused on mainstreaming natural family planning, while stating that
contraceptives are openly sold in the country.[5]
In 1989, the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) was established, "dedicated to
the formulation of viable public policies requiring legislation on population management and socio-economic
development".[citation needed] In 2000, the Philippines signed the Millennium Declarationand committed to attain the MDGs by
2015, including promoting gender equality and health. In 2003 USAID started its phase out of a 33-year-old program by
which free contraceptives were given to the country. Aid recipients such as the Philippines faced the challenge to fund its
own contraception program. In 2004 the Department of Health introduced the Philippines Contraceptive Self-Reliance
Strategy, arranging for the replacement of these donations with domestically provided contraceptives. [5]
In August 2010, the government announced a collaborative work with the USAID in implementing a comprehensive
marketing and communications strategy in favor of family planning called May Plano Sila.
Bill content
Sections
The basic content of the Consolidated Reproductive Health Bill is divided into the following sections. [7]
SEC. 1. pamagat
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy
SEC. 3. Guiding Principles
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms
SEC. 5. Midwives for Skilled Attendance
SEC. 6. Emergency Obstetric Care
SEC. 7. Access to Family Planning
SEC. 8. Maternal and Newborn Health Care in Crisis Situations
SEC. 9. Maternal Death Review
SEC. 10. Role of the Food and Drug Administration
SEC. 11. Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies
SEC. 12. Integration of Family Planning and Responsible Parenthood Component in Anti-Poverty Programs
SEC. 13. Roles of Local Government in Family Planning Programs
SEC. 14. Benefits for Serious and Life-Threatening Reproductive Health Conditions
SEC. 15. Mobile Health Care Service
SEC. 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education

SEC. 17. Additional Duty of the Local Population Officer
SEC. 18. Certificate of Compliance
SEC. 19. Capability Building of Barangay Health Workers
SEC. 20. Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women
SEC. 21. Sexual And Reproductive Health Programs For Persons With Disabilities (PWDs)
SEC. 22. Right to Reproductive Health Care Information
SEC. 23. Implementing Mechanisms
SEC. 24. Reporting Requirements
SEC. 25. Congressional Oversight Committee
SEC. 26. Prohibited Acts
SEC. 27. Penalties
SEC. 28. Appropriations
SEC. 29. Implementing Rules and Regulations
SEC. 30-32. Separability Clause, Repealing Clause, Effectivity
Summary of major provisions
The bill mandates the government to promote, without biases, all effective natural and modern methods of family planning
that are medically safe and legal.[8]
Although abortion is recognized as illegal and punishable by law, the bill states that the government shall ensure that all
women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and
compassionate manner.[8]
The bill calls for a multi-dimensional approach integrates a component of family planning and responsible parenthood
into all government anti-poverty programs.[8] Age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education is required from
grade five to fourth year high school using life-skills and other approaches. [8]
The bill also mandates the Department of Labor and Employment to guarantee the reproductive health rights of its female
employees. Companies with fewer than 200 workers are required to enter into partnership with health care providers in
their area for the delivery of reproductive health services.[8]
Employers with more than 200 employees shall provide reproductive health services to all employees in their own
respective health facilities. Those with less than 200 workers shall enter into partnerships with health professionals for the
delivery of reproductive health services. Employers shall inform employees of the availability of family planning. They are
also obliged to monitor pregnant working employees among their workforce and ensure they are provided paid half-day
prenatal medical leaves for each month of the pregnancy period that they are employed. [8]
The national government and local governments will ensure the availability of reproductive health care services like family
planning and prenatal care.[8]
Any person or public official who prohibits or restricts the delivery of legal and medically safe reproductive health care
services will be meted penalty by imprisonment or a fine.[8]
Support
Free choice regarding reproductive health enables people, especially the poor, to have the number of children they want
and can feasibly care and provide for. There are several studies cited by those who support the bill:
Economic studies, especially the experience in Asia, [9] show that rapid population growth and high fertility rates,
especially among the poor, exacerbate poverty and make it harder for the government to address it. [10][11]
Poverty incidence is higher among big families.[10][12] Smaller families and wider birth intervals could allow families to
invest more in each childs education, health, nutrition and eventually reduce poverty and hunger at the household
level[5][9][10]
Studies show that 44% of the pregnancies in the poorest quintile are unanticipated, and among the poorest
women who would like to avoid pregnancy, at least 41% do not use any contraceptive method because of lack of
information or access[9][10] and "among the poorest families, 22% of married women of reproductive age express a
desire to avoid pregnancies but are still not using any family planning method" [9]
Use of contraception, which the World Health Organization has listed as essential medicines,[13][14] will lower the rate
of abortions as it has done in other parts of the world, according to the Guttmacher Institute[15]
An SWS survey of 2008 showed that 71% of the respondents are in favor of the bill [16]
Criticism
Opponents of the bill argue that:
People's freedom to access contraceptives is not restricted by any opposing law, being available in family planning
NGOs, stores, etc. The country is not awelfare state: taxpayer's money should not be used for personal practices that
are harmful and immoral; it can be used to inform people of the harm of BCPs.
The penal provisions constitute a violation of free choice and conscience, and establishes religious persecution[17]
President Aquino stated he was not an author of the bill. He also stated that he gives full support to a firm population
policy, educating parents to be responsible, providing contraceptives to those who ask for them, but he refuses to promote
contraceptive use. He said that his position "is more aptly called responsible parenthood rather than reproductive health".
[18][19]
Economic and demographic premises

The Philippines is the 39th most densely populated country, with a density over 335 per squared kilometer,[20] and the
population growth rate is 1.9% (2010 Census),[21] 1.957% (2010 est. by CIA World Factbook), or 1.85% (20052010 high
variant estimate by the UN Population Division, World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision) coming from 3.1 in 1960.
[citation needed]
The 2013 total fertility rate (TFR) is 3.20 births per woman, from a TFR of 7 in 1960.[22] In addition, the total fertility rate for
the richest quintile of the population is 2.0, which is about one third the TFR of the poorest quintile (5.9 children per
woman). The TFR for women with college education is 2.3, about half that of women with only an elementary education
(4.5 children per woman).[23]
Congressman Lagman states that the bill "recognizes the verifiable link between a huge population and poverty. Unbridled
population growth stunts socioeconomic development and aggravates poverty". [15]
The University of the Philippines School of Economics presented two papers in support of the bill: Population and Poverty:
the Real Score (2004), andPopulation, Poverty, Politics and the Reproductive Health Bill (2008). According to these
economists, which include Solita Monsod, Gerardo Sicat, Cayetano Paderanga, Ernesto M. Pernia, and Stella AlabastroQuimbo, "rapid population growth and high fertility rates, especially among the poor, do exacerbate poverty and make it
harder for the government to address it", while at the same time clarifying that it would be "extreme" to view "population
growth as the principal cause of poverty that would justify the government resorting to draconian and coercive measures
to deal with the problem (e.g., denial of basic services and subsidies to families with more than two children)". They
illustrate the connection between rapid population growth and poverty by comparing the economic growth and population
growth rates of Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, wherein the first two grew more rapidly than the Philippines due
to lower population growth rates.[10] They stressed that "the experience from across Asia indicates that a population policy
cum government-funded [family planning] program has been a critical complement to sound economic policy and poverty
reduction".[9]
In Population and Poverty, Aniceto Orbeta, Jr., showed that poverty incidence is higher among big families: 57.3% of
Filipino families with seven children are in poverty while only 23.8% of families who have two children live below the
poverty threshold.[12]
Proponents argue that smaller families and wider birth intervals resulting from the use of contraceptives allow families to
invest more in each childs education, health, nutrition and eventually reduce poverty and hunger at the household level.
[9]
At the national level, fertility reduction cuts the cost of social services with fewer people attending school or seeking
medical care and as demand eases for housing, transportation, jobs, water, food, and other natural resources. [5][10]
[24]
The Asian Development Bank in 2004 also listed a large population as one of the major causes of poverty in the
country, together with weak macroeconomic management, employment issues, an underperforming agricultural sector and
an unfinished land reform agenda, governance issues including corruption. [11]
Criticism of premises
Opponents refer to a 2003 study of Rand Corporation, which concluded that "there is little cross-country evidence that
population growth impedes or promotes economic growth...population neutralism has in fact been the predominant school
in thinking among academics about population growth for the last half-century". For example, the 1992 study of Ross
Levine and David Renelt, which covered 119 countries over 30 years (versus a University of the Philippines study of 3
countries over a few years). The RAND study also said that a large population can promote growth given the right
fundamentals.[25] Thus, they refer to the HSBC 2012 projection for 2050 that the Philippines will be 16th largest economy
due to its large growing population, and those whose populations are decreasing will suffer decline. [26]
In a recent development, two authors of the Reproductive Health Bill changed their stand on the provisions of the bill
regarding population and development. Reps. Emerciana de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan wanted to delete three
provisions which state that "gender equality and women empowerment are central elements of reproductive health and
population and development", which integrate responsible parenthood and family planning programs into anti-poverty
initiatives, and which name the Population Commission as a coordinating body. The two party-list representatives strongly
state that poverty is not due to over-population but because of inequality and corruption. [27]
The Wall Street Journal in July 2012 said that Aquino's "promotion of a 'reproductive health' bill is jarring" since it could
lead to "a demographic trap of too few workers. The Philippines doesn't have too many people, it has too few pro-growth
policies".[28]
Opposing the bill, Former Finance Secretary Roberto de Ocampo wrote that it is "truly disingenuous for anyone to proceed
on the premise that the poor are to blame for the nations poverty:. He emphasized that the government should apply the
principle of first things first and focus on the root causes of the poverty (e.g., poor governance, corruption) and apply many
other alternatives to solve the problem (e.g., giving up pork barrel, raising tax collection efficiency).[17]
Maternal health and deaths

Maternal deaths in the Philippines, according to the World Health Organization, is at 5.7 per day,[29] not 1011 deaths a
day, as per the proponents who repeated these numbers "to drive home the point". [30][31]
The proponents state that the passage of the RH Bill would mean:
Access to information on natural and modern family planning
Improvement of maternal, infant, and child health and nutrition
Promotion of breast feeding
Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications
Improvement of adolescent and youth health
Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and other STDs
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 issues
Prevention and treatment of infertility
Reproductive health education for the youth
The Department of Health states that family planning can reduce maternal mortality by about 32%. [13] The bill is "meant to
prevent maternal deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth", said Clara Padilla of Engender Rights. She reported that
every day, "there are 11 women dying while giving birth in the Philippines. These preventable deaths could have been
avoided if more Filipino women have access to reproductive health information and healthcare". [citation needed]
The key to solving maternal deaths, according to the Senate Policy Brief on reproductive health, is the establishment
of birthing centers.[5]
The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) stated in their Position Paper that the goal of reducing the rise of maternal and
child deaths "could be attained by improving maternal and child health care without the necessity of distributing
contraceptives. The millions of funds intended for the contraceptive devices may just well be applied in improving the skills
of our health workers in reducing maternal and child mortality in the Philippines". [32]
Magna Carta for Women

Senator Majority Floor Leader Tito Sotto said that the RH Bill is redundant to a 2009 law referred to as the Magna Carta
for Women, which contains reproductive health provisions, asking the Senate to drop the bill. [33]
Unmet need
Using data from the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey, Lagman stated that "Twenty-two percent of married
Filipino women have an unmet need for family planning services, an increase by more than one-third since the 2003
National Demographic and Housing Survey". "Our women are having more children than they desire, as seen in the gap
between desired fertility (2.5 children) and actual fertility (3.5 children), implying a significant unmet need for reproductive
health services", state some Ateneo de Manila University professors. The Bill provides that "the State shall assist couples,
parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable
development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size." [9][24]
Writing against the bill, Bernardo Villegas wrote about the Myth of Unmet Family Planning Needs, citing development
economist Lant Pritchett who said that the term "unmet need" is an elitist construct, an imposition of a need on the poor,
disrespectful of their real preferences. Pritchett said that it is "based on a discrepancy...identified by the analyst through
the comparison of responses to items in separate blocks of the questionnaire" and is "an inference on the part of the
researcher, not a condition reported by the respondents themselves". Pritchett argued this term is applied to women who
are not sexually active, are infecund, whose husband is absent, etc., thus bloating the numbers to favor the
pharmaceutical companies and those with a population control agenda. Villegas stressed: "Because [the poor] have been
deprived of the infrastructures they need, such as farm-to-market roads, irrigation systems, post-harvest facilities and
other support services that the State neglected to provide them, the only economic resources they have are their children".
He also challenged that he is willing to bet that if the government will provide cash money to the poor to buy condoms, the
poor will use the cash for food and basic needs, thus exploding the myth. [34]
Access
One of the main concerns of the proponents is the perceived lack of access to family planning devices such as
contraceptives and sterilization. The bill intends to provide universal access through government funding, complementing
thus private sector initiatives for family planning services, such as those offered by the International Planned Parenthood
Federation (IPPF) which supports the Family Planning Organizations of the Philippines and the 97 organizations of the
Philippine NGO Council.[citation needed]
The UP School of Economics argues, in contrast, that there is lack of access especially for poor people, because
contraceptive use is extremely low among them and "among the poorest families, 22% of married women of reproductive
age express a desire to avoid pregnancies but are still not using any family planning method". [9] They say that lack of
access leads to a number of serious problems which demand attention: (1) "too many and too closely-spaced children
raises the risk of illness and premature deaths (for mother and child alike)," (2) "the health risks associated with mistimed
and unwanted pregnancies are higher for adolescent mothers, as they are more likely to have complications during labor,"
(3) women who have mistimed pregnancies are "constrained to rely more on public education and health services and
other publicly provided goods and services", further complicating limited public resources, (4) families are not able to
achieve their desired family size. Thus the UP economists "strongly and unequivocally support" the thrust of the bill to
enable "couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the
information and means to carry out their decisions.[9] Proponents argue that government-funded access is the key to
breaking the inter-generational poverty that many people are trapped in. [9][24]
Natural family planning

Proponents of the bill contend that "natural family planning methods have not proven to be as reliable as artificial means of
birth control".[35]
Abortion
Abortifacient issue
According to the RH bill, one of its components is "prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion
complications". It provides that "the government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortion complications
shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner". It also states that "abortion
remains a crime and is punishable", as the Constitution declares that the State shall equally protect the life of the mother
and the life of the unborn from conception.[36]
The position of the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) "is founded strongly on the principle that 'life or conception
begins at fertilization' at that moment where there is fusion or union of the sperm and the egg and thus a human person or
human being already does exist at the moment of fertilization". The PMA condemns abortifacients that "destroys the
fertilized egg or the embryo" and "abhors any procedure...or medication that will interrupt any stage of fertilization and
prevents its normal, physiological, uninterrupted growth to adulthood". [32]
Jo Imbong, founder of the Abay Pamilya Foundation, reported that "Lagman said in a House hearing that the bill would
protect human life 'from implantation' ",[37] and not from fertilization, noting at the same time that the Records of the
Constitutional Commission state that Human life begins at fertilization. [37][38]
Contraception and abortion relationship

Proponents argue that research by the Guttmacher Institute, involved in advancing international reproductive health,
reveals that the use of contraceptives can reduce abortion rates by 85%. Proponents such as 14 Ateneo de Manila
University professors, argued thus: "Studies show that the majority of women who go for an abortion are married or in a
consensual union (91%), the mother of three or more children (57%), and poor (68%) (Juarez, Cabigon, and Singh 2005).
For these women, terminating a pregnancy is an anguished choice they make in the face of severe constraints. When
women who had attempted an abortion were asked their reasons for doing so, their top three responses were: they could
not afford the economic cost of raising another child (72%); their pregnancy occurred too soon after the last one (57%);
and they already have enough children (54%). One in ten women (13%) who had attempted an abortion revealed that this
was because her pregnancy resulted from forced sex (ibid.). Thus, for these women, abortion has become a family
planning method, in the absence of information on and access to any reliable means to prevent an unplanned and
unwanted pregnancy".[24]
The bill, said Clara Padilla of EnGender Rights Inc, will "help reduce the number of abortions by providing increased
access to information and services on modern contraceptive methods, that in turn will reduce the number of unwanted
and often abortedpregnancies".[39]
Both sides of the debate accuse the other side of deception and misleading the public. The pro-RH people accuse the
anti-RH group of misleading the public by calling the bill an abortion bill, when the bill states that abortion remains a crime
and is punishable. The anti-RH advocates accuse the RH supporters of hiding from the public the international population
control agenda which includes abortion and they refer to U.S. Secretary Hillary Clinton who said that RH includes abortion.
[40][41][42]
Contraceptives
Morality and social effects
Fourteen professors from Ateneo de Manila University, a prominent Catholic University, considering the empirical
evidence of the dire socioeconomic conditions of the Filipino poor, urged that the bill be passed to help them. They
argued: "As Catholics and Filipinos, we share the hope and mission of building a Church of the Poor. We are thus deeply
disturbed and saddened by calls made by some members of the Catholic Church to reject a proposed legislation that
promises to improve the wellbeing of Filipino families, especially the lives of women, children, adolescents, and the poor".
They announced that "Catholic social teachings recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden
compliance to directives from political and religious authorities", urging Catholic authorities to withdraw their opposition the
bill.[24] Citing Catholic documents and scientific studies, they reasoned that "the RH Bill is pro-life, pro-women, pro-poor,
pro-youth, and pro-informed choice". They emphasized that the bill "promotes quality of life, by enabling couples,
especially the poor, to bring into the world only the number of children they believe they can care for and nurture to
become healthy and productive members of our society". [24] Thus, they called their paper "Catholics Can Support the RH
Bill in Good Conscience".[24]
In response, the Ateneo administration announced its unity with Catholic teaching and that it had "serious objections to the
present bill".[43]
Proponents such as Lagman also stressed that official Catholic teaching itself, expressed in the Encyclical Humanae
Vitae issued only forty years ago in 1964, is not infallible.[15] He said that the Papal Commission on Birth Control, which
included ranking prelates and theologians, recommended that the Church change its teaching on contraception as it
concluded that the regulation of conception appears necessary for many couples who wish to achieve a responsible,
open and reasonable parenthood in todays circumstances. The editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, moreover, stated
that Catholic teaching is "only" a religious teaching and should not be imposed with intolerance on a secular state. [citation needed]
Opponents argue that misery is not the result of the church which they say is the largest charitable organization in the
world, but of a breakdown in moral sense that gives order to society, nor does misery come from parents who bring up
children in faithfulness, discipline, love and respect for life, but from those who strip human beings of moral dignity and
responsibility, by treating them as mere machines, which they believe contraception does. [44]
Health reasons
Stating that contraception is a lie and "against the beginning of new life", the Philippine Medical Association also stressed
that the "health risks of contraception to women are considerable; the list of side effects is long, and includes high blood
pressure, strokes, increased incidence of some forms of cancer". [32]
Proponents such as E. Ansioco of Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines argued that "The World Health
Organization (WHO) includes contraceptives in its Model Lists of Essential Drugs" and thus are safe medicines. [13]
[14]
"Medical and scientific evidence," says the main proponent, "shows that all the possible medical risks connected with
contraceptives are infinitely lower than the risks of an actual pregnancy and everyday activities...The risk of dying within a
year of using pills is 1 in 200,000. The risk of dying from a vasectomy is 1 in 1 million and the risk of dying from using an
IUD is 1 in 10 million...But the risk of dying from a pregnancy is 1 in 10,000." [15]
HIV/AIDS
The RH bill provides for "prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other, STIs/STDs", especially since the number of HIV
cases among the young nearly tripled from 41 in 2007 to 110 in 2008. [39] Proponents emphasized that RH will help in
stemming the AIDS epidemic that is worsening in the Philippines. Lagman explained that "Globally, the new number of
reported cases of HIV infections and deaths has dropped by nearly 20 percent. It is therefore both ironic and tragic that the
Philippines trajectory is towards the other direction. Our countrys HIV/AIDS statistics have increased by 30
percent!"[45] Primary among the means is distribution of condoms. The proponents applauded government efforts last
February 2010 when it distributed condoms in some areas of Manila. [citation needed]
Opinion polls and TV debates

Proponents refer to many surveys conducted by two prominent locally based organizations (SWS and Pulse Asia) which
show majority support for the bill. A survey conducted in 2008 by the Social Weather Stations, commissioned by the
Forum for Family Planning and Development (FFPD), a non-government advocacy group, showed that 68 percent of
Filipinos agree that there should be a law requiring government to distribute legal contraceptives. [46] SWS President and
RH Bill proponent, Mahar Mangahas reported that the "survey found 71 percent in favor [of the RH Bill], 21 percent
undecided, and a mere 8 percent opposed. Among those who originally knew of the bill, the score is 84 percent in favor,
and 6 percent opposed. Among those who learned of the bill for the first time because of the survey, the score is 59
percent in favor, versus 11 percent opposed.[16][46] Pulse Asia reported that in an October 2008 survey "most Filipinos are
aware of the reproductive health bill pending at the House of Representatives (68%) and are in favor of the bill (63%)". [47] In
December 2010, Pulse Asia announced based on the results of an October 2010 survey, 69% of the Filipinos are in favor
of the bill.[citation needed]
President of Prolife Philippines, Lito Atienza, said that the surveys conducted by SWS and Pulse Asia were misleading,
because the participants were not fully informed of the bill, were merely aware of it, and informed that it was about health
and "modern methods". Instead he referred to the Filipino Family survey of December 2009 conducted by the HB&A
International (an affiliate of Louis Harris & Associates) together with the personnel of Asia Research Organization (the
Philippine affiliate of Gallup International). The survey concluded that 92% of people in metropolitan Manila rejected the
bill, "85 percent are not aware that once passed the RH bill would allow teenagers to secure 'abortifacient devices and
substances' without their parents knowledge and consent....90 percent do not agree that Congress should appropriate P2
billion to the detriment of other essential medicines for free childrens vaccinations, treatment of dreaded diseases and
other more important health and medical concerns."[48] Mangahas acknowledged that the SWS surveys did not include the
penalties.[49]
A TV Debate was also hosted by ABS-CBN last May 2011. Leaders of both sides, including Rep. Lagman and Rep. Golez
were present. According to the ABS-CBN news which reported on the results: "In the SMS poll, 69.58% of votes cast reject
the RH bill while 30.42% support it".[50] In the separate online poll held on the Harapan microsite that livestreamed the
debate, majority voted against the bill at the very end of the debate.[dubious discuss]
On TV5's Debate Hamon sa Pagbabago on August 21, 2011, the studio audience voted 100% against the bill, while 58.7%
of the viewers voted against the RH Bill via text messaging, versus 41.3% in favor.[51]
The online poll conducted by the Philippine Star published on May 18, 2011, showed that 56% were against the RH Bill,
while 44% were in favor.[52]
Rallies
Beginning in late 2010, there were rallies for and against the bill. [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]
Penalties
There is mandatory sexuality education starting grade 5, and "malicious disinformation" is penalized. [63] All health care
service providers which provide reproductive health services, including faith-based hospital administrators, may be
imprisoned or fined if they refuse to provide family planning services such astubal ligation and vasectomy. The same may
happen to employers who do not provide free services to employees. [63] Imprisonment ranges from one to six months or a
fine ranging from ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). [63] Former Finance
Secretary Roberto de Ocampo stated that these punitive provisions "are tantamount to an affront to civil liberties and
smack of religious persecution".[17]
Defending the bill, Felipe Medalla, former dean of the University of the Philippines School of Economics, said that
"although the poors access to family planning services can be improved even without the law, the absence of the law
makes it easier to block the program".[citation needed]
Separation of church and state

The head of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines, Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle opposes the Reproductive
Health Bill, along with abortion andcontraception. Because 81% of Filipinos are Catholics, the Catholic Church exerts a
strong influence in public and moral life. Its staunch opposition to the bill has drawn the controversy among non-Catholics
and Catholics alike who support the bill whereby many invoke the principle of separation of church and state.[64]
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J, one of the drafters of the Philippine Constitution and a prominent lawyer and writer, explained that
the concept of separation of church and state is directed towards the state, rather than the church, as it is a political
concept. Technically it means non-establishment of religion, as the Constitution stated that No law shall be passed
respecting an establishment of religion. It means that the state should be guided by the principle that it should support no
specific religion. This means that government funding should not be allocated for building churches or mosques, and not
favor any particular religion. It does not prevent the church, parents, supervisors, teachers and other moral educators from
expressing their views and educating their wards on the morality of their personal and social actions. The Catholic church
also states that their stand is based on secular reasons and natural law that are both acceptable to non-Catholics too.
Proponents, on the other hand, state that the church should not meddle in matters of the state, and should focus on
religious matters, not political matters.[65]
Culture war and its implications

The national debate is seen as part of a wider culture war.[66] Passage or non-passage of the bill have negative implications
depending on the views. Proponents state that the non-passage of the bill will mean keeping the Philippines in a backward
state and unable to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, especially the points on poverty alleviation and maternal
health. It will mean reneging on international commitments and will slow down modernization. Also the poor will not have
free access to family planning support that many have expressed desires to have, and thus will have more children than
they can care for, and will not have the money to invest in education to break the intergenerational poverty they are
trapped in. Proponents also accuse the Catholic Church of holding the Philippines "hostage" and violating the separation
of church and state.[67] They argue that a decreased population growth will lead to improved quality of life and economic
development.
Financials
Department of Health is proposing 13.7 billion pesos to be fund the RH Bill if it is passed in 2012, according to Senator Pia
Cayetano.[68]
Filipinos for Life, an anti-abortion organization, claimed that the bill was funded by foreign population control groups, a
claim that Rep. Edcel Lagman denied as "an old yarn which is destitute of factual basis", saying that the lobby opposing
the bill was the one which was backed by the "wealthy Catholic hierarchy with the aid of dozens of lay organizations. [69]
Young Nine Legislators (Y9L)including Aliah Dimaporo, Lucy Torres-Gomez, Karlo Alexei Nogralessaid that The
proposed P3 billion appropriation for the RH bill, if put towards education, can help secure the future of young Filipinos.
That amount can build 4,644 new classroomsor it can subsidize the college education of 300,000 scholarsa chance
for underprivileged student achievers to earn their diploma. [70]
Lagman on the other hand said that both these priorities are important but with a burgeoning population the budget will
become even tighter, thus population growth is a major issue.[citation needed]
International reactions
European Union
European Union Ambassador to the Philippines Alistair MacDonald said "We have all seen the figures on illegal abortion a
year in the Philippines and I very much hope that both Houses of Congress will take these issues into account in
producing a reproductive health legislation which will really help people make their own choices and to provide for their
families".[71]
MacDonald said that lack of effective access to reproductive health services in the Philippines was "antithetical" to the
countrys struggle against poverty and "It seems to me extremely unlikely that the Philippines will be able to meet its
commitment under the MDGs under the present policy". [71] MacDonald noted that thetotal fertility rate for the richest quintile
of the population is 2.0, while the total fertility rate of the poorest quintile is 5.9. The total fertility rate for women with a
college education is 2.3, about half that of women with only elementary education (4.5). He mentioned that the lack of
access to RH services is anti-women, citing the slow decline in the maternal mortality ratio in the Philippines. He also said
surveys suggest that the total wanted fertility rate for the Philippines is 2.4 children, or below the actual TFR of 3.3
children.[71]
Status
Legislature
On January 31, 2011, six different bills were consolidated into a single RH Bill which was then unanimously approved for
plenary debate by the House Committee on Population and Family Relations. On February 7, 2011, the bill was scheduled
to go before the House Appropriations Committee. On February 16, 2011, the bill was endorsed by the House
Appropriations Committee with amendment and referred back to the Population Committee for finalizing the language. [citation
needed]
President and Cabinet

President Noynoy Aquino during the presidential campaign said that it confounds him why he is always associated with the
RH Bill and reiterated that he is neither an author nor a co-author, much less did he sign the committee report regarding
the bill. He said that "he will fully support the crafting of a firm policy that will address the serious problem on
population"[18] At the same time, Aquino said that "artificial contraception was a matter of choice and conscience and that
health professionals who fool people into using artificial contraceptives should be penalized. As a Catholic, Aquino said he
himself was not promoting artificial contraception but believes that the government should be able to provide it to Filipinos
who ask for it". Aquino stressed: "Im a Catholic, Im not promoting it. My position is more aptly called responsible
parenthood rather than reproductive health.[19]
According to Rina Jimenez David who is pro-RH, during the Women Deliver Philippines Conference held September
2010, Dinky Soliman, Aquino's Secretary of Social Welfare and Development, said that "choice and access constituted
the keystone of the Aquino governments policy, reiterating the administrations support for the pending reproductive health
bills.[72]
On December 2010, the Cabinet and the CBCP agreed to have a joint campaign providing full information on the
advantages and risks of contraceptives, natural and artificial family planning and responsible parenthood. They have
established a technical working group for this purpose. They also agreed that government will not be an "instrument to
enforce or violate the conscience of the people about these issues". [73]
However, by April 2011 the President has given his full support to the entire RH Bill in a speech at the University of the
Philippines and promised to push for its passage even at the "risk of excommunication". [74]
Compromise and alternatives

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Congressman Roilo Golez and Buhay party-list separately filed bills that seek to
restrict abortion and birth control use. These bills have been seen either as a nullification of the RH Bill, its alternative, or
as a way of achieving unity among the populace, since the RH Bill proponents have stated their concern in preventing
abortion.
Presidential candidate Gilbert Teodoro or Gibo suggested a cash transfer from the government to individuals wanting
access to family planning methods, whether natural or artificial. The individuals can then make use of the cash they
receive to purchase birth control devices they may choose, thus guaranteeing freedom of choice. [75]
The Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on State and Church Issues issued nine talking points on
the RH Bill. Among other points, they proposed a study on the meaning of conception in the Constitution, and if it means
fertilization, abortifacients "are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed". They also
proposed "parallel programs for providing information and training, one for Natural Family Planning (NFP) and another for
artificial methods of family planning".[76] Columnist Jose Sison of the Philippine Star criticized this: a Catholic School of
theology has actually proposed in public, the use of tax payers money to train Filipinos to employ methods that are
objectively and intrinsically evil and cites "empirical evidence and scientific proofs confirming the harmful and evil effects
of contraceptives to individuals and to society."[77]
Other events 20102012

In September 2010, Aquino during this visit to the United States reiterated his stand that he is in favor of responsible
parenthood and respects the decision of each couple as to the number of children they want, and if they need the
government support for contraception, then the government will provide it. This statement has created a furor as Catholic
church leaders say that Aquino has sold out the Filipino soul in exchange for some "measly" aid from the United States.
The President of the Catholic Bishops Conference said that there can possibly be an excommunication of the President if
he continues on with his stance. Pro-RH Bill Senators encouraged the President to be steadfast to do his duties towards
the state. The President's spokesperson Edwin Lacierdaexplained that the President "has not changed his stand" and is
reaching out to the prelates and said that the President himself has not made any decision in support of the Reproductive
Health Bill as he is still studying the document. Lacierda said that the Executive Branch "is not involved in the passage of
the RH bill, saying the measure's fate rests solely on the legislative branch".
Filipino Freethinkers, an association of agnostics, atheists, progressives, etc., who have been very active in the fight in
favor of the RH bill, stepped up the pressure, creating more controversy that fired up renewed interest in the bill on both
sides. On September 30, 2010, one of the freethinkers, Carlos Celdranstaged a protest action against the Catholic
Church, holding a sign which read "DAMASO"a reference to the villainous, corrupt clergyman Father Dmaso of the
novel Noli Me Tangere by Filipino revolutionary writer Jose Rizaland shouting "stop getting involved in politics!" A fan
page, Free Carlos Celdran was created in Facebook, which generated 23,808 fans in 24 hours. Francisco Montalvan of
the Inquirer said that in the end the Damasos are the scheming, corrupt and deceptive people, implying that the "pro-death
advocates" are these, while the Cardinal Rosales who started a nationwide fund for the poor is very far from Damaso.
Meanwhile, the Imam Council of the Philippines, the top leaders of the Moslem population which at 4.5 million constitutes
5% of the Philippine population, declared that they are against contraceptives since using them "underestimates God",
and "makes one lose morality in the process".
During the first public hearing on 24 Nov, the chair of the Committee on Population handling the bill said that there is no
instruction from the Speaker of the House to expedite the bill. Upon the call of anti-RH congressmen, the Committee Chair
decided to refer the bill also to the Committee on Health, since the bill is about Reproductive Health. Leader of the pro-RH
group, Elizabeth Ansioco, said that the bill is doomed if it is referred to the Committee on Health. Anti-RH Deputy Speaker
Congressman Pablo Garcia said the members of the Committee on Health know of the WHO announcement on the
carcinogenicity of combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives.
House Speaker Belmonte said that Congress is not likely to rush the legislation of the bill and will tackle it in plenary early
next year. Belmonte said it is better that highly contentious bills be given more attention.
On 3 December, the Senate cut the proposed budget of P 880M for contraceptives down to P 8M for condoms since other
contraceptives violated the Constitution's ban on abortifacients, and Senator Tito Sotto III said that his constituents never
asked for contraceptives.
On 27 July 2012, the Speaker of the House decided to put to a vote by August 7, 2012, whether the debates have to be
terminated. Meanwhile, six co-authors of the bill withdrew support, with the head of the minority group of the house
declaring that 8 of their group are withdrawing their previous support for the bill. [78]
Congressional approval and presidential assent

At 3 in the morning on December 13, 2012, the House of Representatives voted on second reading in favor of the bill with
113109, while five representatives abstained. In the upper house, the Senate voted on December 18, 2012 to pass the
bill on second reading with 138, while Senators Sergio Osmea III andLito Lapid were absent.[79]
On the same day, both houses passed the bill on the third and final reading. Members of the House of Representatives
voted 13379, while seven representatives abstained. The Senate registered 138, the same result as the second
reading.[80]
On December 19, 2012, both versions of the bill were passed to the Bicameral Committee to produce a final version to be
signed by the President Aquino. The committee quickly passed the bill in just one session. It was transmitted back to the
House of Representatives and the Senate, which both ratified the bill, with the Senate voting 115 in favor of ratification,
and the House of Representatives voting via voice vote[81][82]
On December 21, 2012, President Aquino signed the bill into law, codifying the bill as Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise
known as the "Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012". News of the signing was announced by
House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II on December 28, 2012.[83]
Supreme Court challenge and delay of implementation

In response to petitions challenging the law's constitutionality, the Supreme Court voted 15-5 on March 19, 2013 to issue a
status quo ante order halting the implementation of the law for four months. [84] Oral arguments were set for June 18, but
postponed until July 9 after the Supreme Court received additional petitions and interventions. [85]
During oral arguments, several justices indicated that the court "does not seem to be the right forum--at least for now"; it
could not settle medical issues, such as whether any contraceptives to be made available were actually abortifacients.
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno said the court might have no choice but to exercise "judicial restraint" on the 15
petitions opposing the law.[86]
On July 16, the justices voted 8-7 to extend the status quo ante order, which would have expired the next day, "until further
orders effective immediately."[87]Oral arguments concluded on August 27, with the petitioners against and for the law being
instructed to submit memorandums within 60 days.[88]
On April 8, 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law. The justices, however, struck down eight
provisions of the law partially or in full.

Family Planning Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Family Planning Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAMILY PLANNING METHOD

No risk of unintended pregnancy.

No risk of becoming infected with a sexually transmitted disease.

Opportunities to express feelings and affection for another in other ways.

Both partners must agree to honor this choice.

May need emergency contraceptive method if this method fails.

Is your partner in agreement?

Does this method fit with your religious or moral beliefs?

Is abstinence the best decision for you?

It is a barrier contraceptive method.

It is used with spermicide for prolonged and additional pregnancy prevention.

What are the advantages of the cervical cap?

No serious side effects.

Does not require partner involvement.

Good for persons who do not have sex on a regular basis.

May decrease risks of some sexually transmitted diseases.

Provides contraceptive protection for up to 48 hours, no matter how many times

Does not interrupt lovemaking.

Does not interfere with breast-feeding.

What are the disadvantages of the cervical cap?

Consistent and correct use is required to prevent pregnancy.

Persons with allergies to latex or spermicides cannot use.

Remains in vagina for at least 6 hours after intercourse.

Possible risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome, if worn longer than 48 hours.

May experience vaginal odor with prolonged use.

Are you comfortable inserting a medical device into your vagina?

Are you sensitive or allergic to latex or spermicidal products?

Does this method fit with your religious or moral beliefs?

Is the cervical cap the best method for you?

Over the counter barrier method of birth control.

Advantages of the male condom:

Easy to get and relatively inexpensive.

Can be discontinued at any time.

Provides some protection from sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

Responsibility of both partners.

Can be purchased without a prescription.

Does not interfere with breast-feeding.

Disadvantages of the male condom; you may experience the following:

Some irritation or sensitivity to latex.

Difficulty using condoms correctly.

Must use a new condom with every sex act.

Some men say it reduces sexual feelings.

Spillage or leaking of sperm is possible if condom is put on or removed incorrectly.

How Should I decide?

Will you remember to use it every time you have sex?

Will your partner be cooperative in the use of this method?

Can you or your partner maintain an erection?

Does this method fit with your religious or moral beliefs?

Is the condom the best method for you?

Depo-Provera ("The Shot")

It is an injection given every 3 months.

It contains synthetic progesterone.

It is a reversible method of birth control given only by prescription.

Does not interfere with sex.

Only need to get a shot 4 times a year.

May stop menses or make them very light.

Excellent alternative for women 35 and older who smoke.

Reduces the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer.

Irregular or unpredictable bleeding or spotting.

Possible hair loss.

Weight gain, especially right after pregnancy.

You must go to the clinic or doctor's office 4 times a year.

Is getting a shot a problem for you?

Does this method fit with your religious, or moral beliefs?