28 July 2014

Anti-RH Groups Still Cling To Illogical Arguments

Illogical Arguments
The anti-RH Law advocates are still not aware or refuse to buckle down and acknowledge the fact that the measure was considered constitutional by the highest court of the land. The legal defeat has definitely thoroughly discredited the extremist ideologues and intellectual zealots, but they still refuse to see it that way.

The hardliners within their ranks argued that with the penal provisions struck down, the RH Law has become a “toothless” law. They even cited as an example that if a company refuses to pay for the condoms for its employees, they cannot be brought to court for this refusal.

I know it is painful to hear it and can almost make your logical brain go freakishly haywire, but, I think, this is the best argument that they can muster just to make themselves important in a fairy tale world that they themselves created. Maybe it’s because they forced themselves to forget the embarrassing first hearing when Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno said that the anti-RH Law petitioners’ solution must be to elect enough people who think like them to have the law changed.

The pro-RH also argued during the course of the hearing that the drugs that will be used are abortifacient. How in the world do they know this in advance when the law has yet to be implemented? More worrisome is that they can’t even identify the specific abortifacient drugs that will be used by the government. Is this argument a product of a superstitious mind that can further into the future? If it is, then the government should better intensify its mental health campaign aside from promoting family planning.

How about this: the anti-RH Law petitioners argued that the sex education materials as infringing on parents’ rights. Unfortunately for them, they cannot even identify one education material that can do this because the government has not reproduced any documents for schools. Eventually, though, this argument will be ripe for court, but right now, it remains a head-scratcher why it was used by anti-RH camp.

Maybe the petitioners were blinded by the high court’s decision to protect “conscientious objectors.” However, they appear to be looking on side of the mirror only. The RH Law facilitates informed choice, which means that the anti-RH are able to choose to opt out of the RH products and services, but the pro-RH are also given a choice and a chance to discuss with the service provider.

By not suppressing the entire law, the Supreme Court recognized that the government needs to implement its programs without undue disruption. Conscientious objections cannot be obnoxious vetoes, such as what the local officials of Barangay Ayala Alabang tried to do a few months ago. The high court gave the government the right to communicate a uniform message regarding RH and disseminate the kind of information it wants to without having this diluted by conscientious objection.