Youth orgs declare support for RH bill

Youth organizations have declared their support for HB 4244, calling sexual and reproductive rights "inalienable human rights which must be fulfilled by the State."

A statement by the organizations signed May 24 said the controversial Reproductive Health bill will offer an "avenue to learn and understand our sexuality and rights," promote gender equality, reduce unplanned pregnancies and respect the right to free and informed choice.

The statement was signed by youth organizations, including several student organizations and student councils of the University of the Philippines.

Full text of statement.

The Libertarian view on RH

Liberty-oriented blogger Colorful Rag sums up the Libertarian case against RH as a solution to poverty:

...it will be found that there are other more relevant factors affecting economic conditions [other than population]: level of economic freedom, size of bureaucracy, openness to foreign investments, taxes, industry regulations, monopolies, etc.

Other Libertarian opinions here and here. Basically, the argument is that the Reproductive Health bill is an unnecessary government measure and that government intervention, not population, hampers economic growth.

Note that whenever Libertarian arguments are used in the RH debate, they usually make a case for small government out of RH. The points are worth considering nonetheless.

"Stealthy strategy"

Apart from saying the RH bill is "all over the place," UP Law student Leo Quesada fears that the ugly provisions in HB 4244 won't be repealed and thinks Rep. Lagman is playing sneaky politics:

And don’t be deceived by Edcel Lagman’s claims that provisions I mentioned above have been repealed/amended. They still appear in the latest HB 4244. Amendments occur after interpellation. (Even Rep. Pacquiao was keen enough to point this out.) Lagman is playing stealthy strategy here to get these measures passed without notice. It’s how riders get through. (Remember Villar’s scandal about double entries in his law? Riders.)

Religion in the public square

Randy David makes the case for religious arguments in secular discussions:

It is absurd to expect people to shed off their moral and religious beliefs when they function as citizens, especially when they are talking about justice and rights. But, it behooves those who articulate them in the public square not merely to invoke them as though they were self-evident truths, but to explain and justify them before those who may not see their relevance.