Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Sen. Vicente Sotto’s speech against RH

Share:

PART I – “I stand up for life”

Turno en Contra against SB 2865

[Note: This is the official press release issued by Senator Sotto’s office. It includes the subtitles. You can view the original here.]

I stand up for life, Mr. President, my esteemed colleagues. This chamber, the senate, is an institution that traces its lineage to the political structure of ancient Rome, where matters of policy were debated and decided in a Council of Elders – Senatus Populus Que Romanus/the Senate and the People of Rome. At that time, as now, issues were hotly argued, and sometimes, lives and honors put at risk, and scrutiny.

Our times, our chamber, and our persons, will be defined and judged, not only by the bills that become laws, but also by the bills that are lost and rejected. Past circumstances defined the senate of their time. During the Commonwealth period, this chamber was defined by the issue of Philippine independence when my grandfather and namesake sat as senator, often clashing with then President Manuel Luis Quezon; during the early years of the Republic after the Second World War, this chamber was defined when it favored Parity Rights for Americans, then popular, but which historians later considered a sell-out; during the 1970s, this chamber imploded with the declaration of Martial Law; and after the EDSA Revolution of 1986 and thereafter, this chamber was resurrected and was distinguished by a new-found nationalism with its rejection of American military bases in 1991.

Today, we will define ourselves again, Mr. President, as we decide whether we shall adopt a measure that is dictated by outside cultures, forces and philosophies, or we shall be true to our Filipino reverence for human life, the solidarity of the family, and the right of parents to determine their family size without interference from the state. We have heard these past months the sponsors of Senate Bill No. 2865 entitled An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population Development popularly known as the Reproductive Health or the RH Bill.

Ang sabi nila ay ang mga sumusunod:

1. The RH Bill will save the lives of the mother and the unborn;

2. The RH Bill will provide Filipinos with information on reproductive health which they can use to make informed and intelligent decisions;

3. The RH Bill will provide Filipinos with access to health care facilities and skilled health professionals;

4. The RH Bill does not promote or legalize abortion;

5. The RH Bill does not impose one mode of family planning method on every Filipino woman and that every person will be allowed to choose the method suitable to her needs and her religious belief;

6. The RH Bill does not limit the size of the Filipino family;

7. The RH Bill does not promote sexual promiscuity among the Filipino youth. Under Section 75 of the Rules of the Senate, upon the closing of the period of parliamentary interpellation on a measure, a senator can take the floor for or against the bill as part of the period of general debate. I speak now against said bill, Mr. President, which we commonly refer to as Turno en Contra. I will present my opposition to the RH bill in four (4) parts, starting today, August 13. I hope to finish the first portion today and the remaining chapters in the coming days. I seek the kind indulgence of this august chamber to bear with me.

I strongly believe that Senate Bill 2865 is not necessary, not beneficial and not practical for our people. It will not serve the common good and, therefore, should be rejected. Deceptive information, as well as unreliable and distorted statistics, have been for the arguments of the RH bill. My main objections to the Reproductive Health Bill are as follows:

1. The RH Bill violates Philippine sovereignty, the Philippine Constitution and existing penal laws;

2. The RH bill is detrimental to the health of a pregnant mother and puts the life of the unborn on the line;

3. The RH Bill violates our financial independence and the autonomy of local governments; and,

4. The RH Bill transgresses Filipino culture and family values.

 

D I S C U S S I O N

Article II, Section 12, of the Philippine Constitution provides: “The state shall EQUALLY protect the life of the mother and THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN FROM CONCEPTION.” In the Records of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the l987 Constitution, Commissioner Bernardo Villegas in his sponsorship speech dated September 12, 1986, on the article mandating the State to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception, stated:

“The first question that needs to be answered: is the fertilized ovum alive? Biology categorically says yes, the fertilized ovum is alive.”

Malinaw po na napag-usapan sa pagpanday ng ating Konstitusyon kung kailan nagiging tao ang tao. Itong katotohanan na ito ngayon ang binubuwag at nais palitan ng mga nagtutulak ng RH bill. Sa katunayan, ang isa sa mga nagsusulong ng RH bill, ang International Planned Parenthood Federation or IPPF ang nag-atas sa mga medical associations na iayon at palitan ang depinisyon ng pagbubuntis magmula sa tinatawag na konsepsyon at gawing implantasyon. In the book entitled “Deadly Deception” by James Sedlak, it says that to avoid arguments on the issue on whether contraceptives are abortifacients or not, in the late 1960’s IPPF and its affiliates got some medical associations to define a pregnancy as beginning at implantation and not conception.

Now let me go back to the deliberations on Article 2 Section 12 of our Constitution. The second question raised was: Is the alive fertilized ovum, human? Again the answer is a categorical yes. Genetics gives an equally strong ‘yes.’ At the moment of conception, the nuclei of the ovum and the sperm rupture. As this happens 23 chromosomes from the ovum combine with 23 chromosomes of the sperm to form a total of 46 chromosomes. A chromosome count of 46 is found only–and I repeat, only–in a human being. Therefore, the fertilized ovum is a human being.”

Biology and neonatal experts have also spoken on the beginning of human life and let me quote a few of them. “Individual human life begins at conception and is progressive, ongoing continuum until natural death. This is a fact so well established that no intellectually honest physician in full command of modern medical knowledge would dare to deny it. There is no authority in medicine or biology who can be cited to refute this concept. (Source: D.J. Moran, M.D., J.D. Gorby, M.D., and T.W. Hilgers, M.D., “Abortion in the Supreme Court: Death Becomes a Way of Life.” Abortion and Social Justice, Sheed and Ward, 1974.)

Medical textbook authors have also confirmed that the “formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.” (Source: Lesley Arey. Development Anatomy, 7th Edition, 1974. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers.)

“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” (Source: E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. “Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant,” 3rd Edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975,)

Furthermore, Dr. Oscar Tinio, President of the Philippine Medical Association (PMA), has stated that “life begins at fertilization” and anything that prevents the fertilized ovum from being implanted in the uterus is already considered “abortive”.

If you do not completely agree with me and these authorities, and decide to believe in foreign studies sponsored and funded by Allan Guttmacher Research Institute studies, I would advise that why don’t we try asking our own conscience as the unborn child speaks to you in this video.

(Show video)

If you think that conception starts at implantation as what the proponents of this bill want us to accept as true, and not from fertilization, then you have just deprived the baby that you saw of its right to be born. Now that it is established when human life begins, let me now go to the question on how these contraceptives act as abortifacients. Several studies and authorities have shown that hormonal contraceptives act as abortifacients. I firmly believe that those who deny the abortifacient properties of the pill and the IUD have unjustifiably transferred the beginning of life from fertilization to implantation.

My point is this, ovulation and fertilization can still occur despite pills intake. They do not prevent ovulation 100% of the time and thus, fertilization can still occur. There are women with abnormal bleeding and test positive in pregnancy tests despite taking the pill.

Unfortunately, the pill-whether oral, patch or injectable- renders the uterus hostile to implantation. When the fertilized ovum is prevented from implanting in the uterus because of the effect of the pill, this ovum is expelled. This is plain and simple abortion. Morning after pills, on the other hand when taken in large doses within 72 hours after sexual intercourse, no longer prevents fertilization but implantation. In the case of the Intra-Uterine Device (IUD), it does not prevent ovulation, and so fertilization may occur several times in the span of time the device is in the womb of the woman. However, most fetuses will not be able to implant themselves because there is an “appliance” in the womb that prevents them from doing so. Isn’t it that in science, we have the term, “matter occupies space”? Kung may umookupa na, pano pa makakapasok ang fetus sa bahay nya? Kung tayo nga na malalaki at matatanda na, maraming pa ring naririnig na nag-aagawan ng bahay, may nakatirang informal settlers at meron pang professional squatters na tinatawag… pero tayo, ipinaglalaban pa rin natin ang karapatan nating tumira doon. Itong mga fetus na ito, di sila makalaban sa mga foreign objects na umaagaw ng lugar nila. At ang mga pills na nagrerenovate ng bahay dapat nila, ginawa itong non-livable.

Ito ang dahilan kung bakit lubos kung tinututulan ang pagpasa ng RH bill. Hindi ko naman yata hahayaan na may maging batas na kikitil lamang sa mga buhay na walang kalaban-laban. Ano ang karapatan natin na isabatas ang pagdidistribute ng mga abortifacient pills at IUDs na ito, para lamang sa sinasabi nating reproductive health? Ito na lang ba ang nakikita nilang sagot o solusyon?

Kung tutuusin, hindi ito nakakatulong sa reproductive health ng mga kababaihan, sa katunayan nakakasira pa nga ito sa kanilang kalusugan. There are numerous side effects of contraceptives which unfortunately are not made known to the general public. Unahin natin ang side-effects ng pills. There are numerous studies showing its carcinogenic properties since the development of the synthetic estrogens in 1938 by Sir Edward Charles Dodds. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on July 29, 2005 that after a thorough review of the published scientific literature, it has concluded that combined estrogen -progestogen oral contraceptives (and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy) are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1 category. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.) The listed major adverse effects of the pill on women are the following: Breast cancer, cervical cancer, liver cancer, premature hypertension and coronary artery disease resulting in heart attacks and strokes, thromboembolism/pulmonary embolism. Other adverse effects are decreased libido, infertility, leg cramps, gallstone formation, nausea, bloatedness, etc.

Next are the side effects of the IUD. Intrauterine devices have been said to have the following effects: Cramps, bleeding between periods, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and tear or hole in the uterus.

Even condoms pose a serious health risk. As pointed out by Sen. Lacson, the size of the pores in condoms is 5 microns. What is alarming is that the size of the HIV virus is 0.1 micron. There can still be transmission of the HIV virus even with the use of a condom because 0.1 micron will definitely pass through 5 microns. Even the U.S. government has withdrawn US$2.6 million worth of grant to study condoms because an unacceptably high number of condom users probably would have been infected in such a study. No one wanted to take part in the study for fear of getting infected by the HIV virus so the U.S. government withdrew the grant.

Given all these harmful effects to women, are we going to allow our government to spend billions of money to purchase condoms, pills and IUDs for the sake of what they call “reproductive health”? Hindi ito ang sagot sa sinasabi nilang 11 mothers die every day, kung totoo man yang 11 mothers die everyday na yan. Kung maiipasa itong RH bill, malamang higit pa sa 11 mothers ang mamatay kada araw. Akala ko ang RH bill ay para sa ating mga kababaihan. Ngunit hindi ko maintindihan bakit sa pamamagitan ng RH bill, tayo pa ang magdagdag ng dahilan para dumami ang sakit nila. Kung magbibigay tayo ng pondo gamit ang buwis na binabayad ng ating mga mamamayan sa mga contraceptives na ito, dapat maglaan din tayo ng pondo para sa mga sakit na pwedeng idulot ng mga ito.

Actually, these contraceptives are not just detrimental to women and the unborn. They are scientifically proven to have damaging effects to children born from mothers who were using contraceptives prior to their pregnancy too. According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, the use of the pill also causes severe gut dysbiosis. What is worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change. Gut imbalance brought on through use of the pill negatively impacts the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. As a result, even if a woman eats spectacularly well during pregnancy, if she has been taking oral contraceptives for a period of time beforehand, it is highly likely that she and her baby are not reaping the full benefits of all this healthy food as the lack of beneficial flora in her gut preclude this from occurring. Pathogenic, opportunistic flora that take hold in the gut when the pill is used constantly produce toxic substances which are the by-products of their metabolism. These toxins leak into the woman’s bloodstream and they have the potential to cross the placenta. Therefore, gut dysbiosis exposes the fetus to toxins. Not well known is also the fact that use of the pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called “the intelligence mineral” as it is intimately involved in mental development.

Many could attest to the negative effects of these contraceptives to their children. Senator Lapid revealed during one of the interpellations of this measure that his wife became pregnant despite the use of contraceptives and thus was born their third child who turned out to be a “blue baby.” He said that while they were told that the baby would live for many years if it manages to reach age 14, the baby succumbed to a heart attack at age nine. He and his wife attributed the death to the contraceptives that his wife took. Senator Lapid believes that contraceptives cause the increasing number of child abnormalities and genetic disorders such as cleft chin, multiple births, and conjoined or Siamese twins disorder, which were not that many before contraceptives were introduced.

(PERSONAL EXPERIENCE)

Comments

  1. Sino ba talaga ang magbebenefit sa RH Bill? Ang mga mahihirap or mga manufacturers ng contraceptives who will get 3billion a year for the procurement of these items?
    Hindi pagkontrol ng population growth ang sagot upang umunlad ang bansa. The RH bill will not lead us to progress. We are a nation of values. Let us value life. Edukasyon ang kailangan not RH Bill controlling us on how to live life.

    • nakakita din ako ng PRO RH BILL bloggers, naligaw ka ata tol, wawa kanaman , uwi kana , nautusan lang bumili ng suka , tapos ang lakas ng amoks mo magsalita… evaporate

      PASYAL-PASYAL KA MUNA,

    • 3 billion? Where did you get that figure?

      Sino ba nagsabi na population growth ang sagot upang umunlad ang bansa? Binasa mo na ba yung laman ng RH Bill?

    • sang-ayon ako sa sinabi mo na hindi masosolusyunan ng rh bill ang kahirapan. hindi ito sapat pero ganumpaman hindi ito nangangahulugan na hindi ito dapat ipatupad. sabi mo ang kailangan ay ang edukasyon para umunlad ang pilipinas. pero isipin mo, kung maging edukado nga lahat ang pilipino, pero wala namang trabaho sa pilipinas, uunlad kaya tayo? hindi sapat ang edukason para umunlad ang pilipinas pero hindi ibig sabihin nun na hindi na tayo dapat gumawa ng hakbang para iangat ang kalidad ng edukasyon. ganun din ang rh bill. hindi ito sapat para iangat ang pilipinas mula sa kahirapan pero isa ito sa mga progresibong hakbang na dapat nating isagawa.

    • May point ka pero ang problema ang mahihirap din ang mga umaangal ng kahirapan samantalang napaka rami sa kanila ang may mararaming anak. Kung puwedi sana na magmeet halfway sa bill at alisin na lang ang mga pills at eeducate na lang ang mga tao ng family planning like yong mga men ang mag pa vasectomy at iba pang natural method at paggamit ng condom. O kaya naman e require na lahat sa kalalakihan ang pagpa vasectomy after certain number of children. Hindi naman pagcontrol sa buhay ng isang tao yon dahil hindi naman twist in the arm ang paggamit ng pills.

  2. Sotto is quoting a study in the 70s-80s of an estrogen pill, diethylstilbesterol, that was reported to cause congenital anomalies involving the reproductive tract, not the heart. That pill has been taken out of the market decades ago precisely for this reason.

  4. Skul bukol sotto nangopya ng sasabihin sa isang blogger sa US.

    Ayaw maniwala sa doctor na safe ang pills pero naniniwala sa blogger na nagsasabi din na masama ang vaccines at mga batang fully vaccinated ay pinaka sakiting bata daw na kanyang nakita… hayyy… umulan ng katangahan eh sinalo ata ng taong ito lahat….

  5. What can we expect from sen. sotto? He became a comedian first before being a senator. Hanggang sa impeachment trial wala man lang logical question na naitanong, nagpapatawa lang. And now this?

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/269929/news/nation/sotto-s-anti-rh-speech-copied-from-us-blogger-who-writes-about-recipes

    If i remember correctly we have a assoc. justice who have a pending case due to plagiarism and now here comes sotto to follow on the same foot-steps.

    Biro nyo he did not only use a outdated study (1984) nangopya pa ng speech sa isang blogger na hindi naman health care professional which constitutes to outright lying to the public.

    I guess this will be another episode of corona’s trial for dummies. Chapter 1: “the more you open your mouth the deeper the hole you dig for your own grave.

    • What can we expect from a graduate of WANBUL UNIVERSITY. di lahat kalokohan, , isipin nyo bawat exams 1-100 ang score nya ay 102, pag ki joey o vic napunta nag pag check ng test paper nila, pati pangalan at apelyido ay check kasi….isku bukol, hahaha ,hehe iskul bukol….

  6. Sotto, on the statements of Ex DOH Sec Cabral and Congresswoman Guarin, incidentally, both are physicians:
    “I find their statements callouus and insensitive and it is unfortunate that the reproductive health debate has come to this level. They should have given the sorrow of my family more respect”

    Tito Sotto is wiggling out of his own invention by crying for compassion.

    When he decided to expose his Personal Reason, he should have given respect to his dead son of 37 years. He should have given respect to his wife who took the contraceptives, dealt with the sorrow for long years of silence and kept the secret in the family.

    By his own unprovoked revelation on his family misery for political expediency at the expense of his opponents, he is now asking the latter to spare his family in the tradition of Filipino decency and compassion.

    Sotto is losing his mind, disrespected his own family in the first place, afterwards, begging others to respect them. Besides, morality was his message in his speech. Does Tito understand the meaning of “morality begins at home”?

    Saying goes: “Drugs in prime life do really have mental after effects seen in elders”
    Hmmmm?

  7. Sotto’s anti-RH speech copied from US blogger who writes about recipes
    August 15, 2012 11:07pm

    Sen. Tito Sotto’s emotional story on the Senate floor last Monday about the death of his son may have come from his heart, but at least one lengthy passage from his speech came from someone else’s blog.

    Sotto’s description of the purported ill effects of birth control pills on unborn children was lifted nearly word for word from the blog of “Sarah, the healthy home economist,” a US-based writer who also opposes vaccines for children and offers recipes for goodies like grain-free pumpkin cookies.

    Sotto did not attribute any of his words or research to “Sarah, the healthy home economist,” whose disclaimer cautions that “the nutritional and other information on this website are not intended to be and do not constitute health care or medical advice.”

    The plagiarism was first exposed by Alfredo Melgar on the blog Filipino freethinkers.

    Here is a comparison of Sotto’s speech and Sarah’s blog:

    1. Sotto’s speech (from second to last paragraph):

    “According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, the use of the pill also causes severe gut dysbiosis. What is worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change.”

    Sarah’s blog:

    “According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, use of other drugs such as the Pill also cause severe gut dybiosis. What’s worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change.”

    2. Sotto’s speech:

    “Gut imbalance brought on through use of the pill negatively impacts the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. As a result, even if a woman eats spectacularly well during pregnancy, if she has been taking oral contraceptives for a period of time beforehand, it is highly likely that she and her baby are not reaping the full benefits of all this healthy food as the lack of beneficial flora in her gut preclude this from occurring.”

    Sarah’s blog:

    “Gut imbalance brought on through use of The Pill negatively impacts the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. As a result, even if a women eats spectacularly well during pregnancy, if she has been taking oral contraceptives for a period of time beforehand, it is highly likely that she and her baby are not reaping the full benefits of all this healthy food as the lack of beneficial flora in her gut preclude this from occurring.”

    3. Sotto’s speech:

    “Pathogenic, opportunistic flora that take hold in the gut when the pill is used constantly produce toxic substances which are the by-products of their metabolism. These toxins leak into the woman’s bloodstream and they have the potential to cross the placenta. Therefore, gut dysbiosis exposes the fetus to toxin.”

    Sarah’s blog:

    “Pathogenic, opportunistic flora that take hold in the gut when The Pill is used constantly produce toxic substances which are the by-products of their metabolism. These toxins leak into the woman’s bloodstream and guess what, they have the potential to cross the placenta! Therefore, gut dysbiosis exposes the fetus to toxins.”

    4. Sotto’s speech:

    “Not well known is also the fact that use of the pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called ‘the intelligence mineral’ as it is intimately involved in mental development.”

    Sarah’s blog:

    “Not well known is the fact that use of The Pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called ‘the intelligence mineral’ as it is intimately involved in mental development.”

  8. Turned off TV when Sotto came on air and was therefore spared another crass (yup, I really meant crass not crash) course on dangers of contraceptives on health of babies. When I read your article on Sotto’s documented involvement in methamphetamine hydrochloride (?), I couldn’t help but draw the conclusion that it was Sotto’s fault his infant son died. I understand exposure of a pregnant woman to shabu can lead to reduced blood flow to fetal brain of a child.

    • Sotto’s anti-RH speech copied from US blogger who writes about recipes
      August 15, 2012 11:07pm
      — DVM/HS, GMA News


      Sen. Tito Sotto’s emotional story on the Senate floor last Monday about the death of his son may have come from his heart, but at least one lengthy passage from his speech came from someone else’s blog.

      Sotto’s description of the purported ill effects of birth control pills on unborn children was lifted nearly word for word from the blog of “Sarah, the healthy home economist,” a US-based writer who also opposes vaccines for children and offers recipes for goodies like grain-free pumpkin cookies.

      Sotto did not attribute any of his words or research to “Sarah, the healthy home economist,” whose disclaimer cautions that “the nutritional and other information on this website are not intended to be and do not constitute health care or medical advice.”

      The plagiarism was first exposed by Alfredo Melgar on the blog Filipino freethinkers.

      Here is a comparison of Sotto’s speech and Sarah’s blog:

      1. Sotto’s speech (from second to last paragraph):

      “According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, the use of the pill also causes severe gut dysbiosis. What is worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change.”

      Sarah’s blog:

      “According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, use of other drugs such as the Pill also cause severe gut dybiosis. What’s worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change.”

      2. Sotto’s speech:

      “Gut imbalance brought on through use of the pill negatively impacts the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. As a result, even if a woman eats spectacularly well during pregnancy, if she has been taking oral contraceptives for a period of time beforehand, it is highly likely that she and her baby are not reaping the full benefits of all this healthy food as the lack of beneficial flora in her gut preclude this from occurring.”

      Sarah’s blog:

      “Gut imbalance brought on through use of The Pill negatively impacts the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. As a result, even if a women eats spectacularly well during pregnancy, if she has been taking oral contraceptives for a period of time beforehand, it is highly likely that she and her baby are not reaping the full benefits of all this healthy food as the lack of beneficial flora in her gut preclude this from occurring.”

      3. Sotto’s speech:

      “Pathogenic, opportunistic flora that take hold in the gut when the pill is used constantly produce toxic substances which are the by-products of their metabolism. These toxins leak into the woman’s bloodstream and they have the potential to cross the placenta. Therefore, gut dysbiosis exposes the fetus to toxin.”

      Sarah’s blog:

      “Pathogenic, opportunistic flora that take hold in the gut when The Pill is used constantly produce toxic substances which are the by-products of their metabolism. These toxins leak into the woman’s bloodstream and guess what, they have the potential to cross the placenta! Therefore, gut dysbiosis exposes the fetus to toxins.”

      4. Sotto’s speech:

      “Not well known is also the fact that use of the pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called ‘the intelligence mineral’ as it is intimately involved in mental development.”

      Sarah’s blog:

      “Not well known is the fact that use of The Pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called ‘the intelligence mineral’ as it is intimately involved in mental development.”

    • @Harvey Diaz

      What Sotto was reading as a “turna en contra” speech was a dissertation thesis to “support his candidature for an academic degree” from ISKUL BUKOL where he was a student, he was one of the ESCALERA BROTHERS then, he he he. Ano na kaya ang nagiging reaksyon ni Miss Tapya, ang kanilang titser sa Iskul Bukol.

      In other words, his “turna en contra” speech is part of the script from his forthcoming movie, “I Started A Joke, But The Joke Was On Me” (copy pasted din from the Bee Gees).

  10. Sen. Vicente Sotto III used a 1977 study in his privilege speech this afternoon. It goes…

    “In a cohort of 50,282 pregnancies, 19 children with cardiovascular defects were born to 1042 women who received female hormones during early pregnancy (18.2 per 1000). Among 49,240 children not exposed in utero to these agents there were 385 with cardiovascular malformations (7.8 per 1000). Six children with cardiovascular defects were born to a subgroup of 278 women who used oral contraceptives during early pregnancy (21.5 per 1000). After the data were controlled for a wide variety of potentially confounding factors by multivariate methods, the association between utero exposure to female hormones and cardiovascular birth defects was statistically significant”.

    (Source: Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female Sex Hormones by Olli P. Heinonen, M.D., M.SC., Dennis Slone, M.D., Richard R. Monson, M.D., Ernest B. Hook, M.D., and Samuel Shapiro, M.B., F.R.C.P.)

    • In 1984, the base data of the study quoted by the emotional senator was reevaluated and an opposite conclusion may be inferred…

      ABSTRACT. A re-evaluation of the base data as reported by Heinonen et al. from the Drug Epidemiology Unit of the Boston Collaborative Perinatal Project (CPP) was undertaken in order to examine particularly three matters which were not fully considered in the publication.

      These were, first, the timing of administration of sex hormones during the index pregnancy, which is relevant to determining whether any statistical association reported between sex hormone exposure and malformations could be causal; second, the incidence of serious maternal vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy, which could be an indication of threatened abortion, which in turn is associated with an increased malformation rate, and in addition is an indication for sex hormone administration; and third, the incidence of malformations or other adverse outcome in previous pregnancies, which, if present, might play a material role in the risk of malformation in the index pregnancy.

      Examination of the records of the 19 cases described by Heinonen et al. as hormone-exposed cardiac-malformed revealed that no preparation containing hormone was administered in two patients, that five cases were given hormones too late in the index pregnancy to have any effect on cardiac organogenesis (which by general consensus begins on day 19 and ends at the latest on day 50 of gestation), that two cases were given hormones too early and two cases had Down’s Syndrome. Thus eight children were exposed to hormones during the critical period of cardiac organogenesis, out of 17 actual hormone takers (47%).

      The description of vaginal bleeding did not allow any conclusions regarding differential rates of threatened abortion. It was found that the incidence of major malformations was 17% in the index group and 4% in the non-malformed group. This suggests that the hormone-exposed patients who gave rise to children with cardiac malformations were a highly selected group.

      The re-evaluation therefore reveals that the incidence of exposure to sex hormones during the critical period of cardiac organogenesis was not significantly different statistically in those women whose children had cardiac lesions as compared to those without such lesions. It is suggested that the result of this re-evaluation should direct the attention of epidemiologists to the quality of their base data.

      Re-examination of the base data of the Boston CPP does not support their reported association between the exposure to female sex hormones during pregnancy and the occurrence of cardiac malformations.

      Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female Sex Hormones: A Reevaluation of Some Base Data
      R.A. WISEMAN AND I.C. DODDS-SMITH
      Medical Department, Schering Chemicals Limited, Burgess Hill, West Sussex 1R.A.Wj, and McKenna and Co., Solicitors, Aldwych, London (1.CB-S.).England

      From TERATOLOGY 30:359-370 (1984)

        • Noninherited Risk Factors and Congenital Cardiovascular Defects: Current Knowledge : A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young: Endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics
          Kathy J. Jenkins, Adolfo Correa, Jeffrey A. Feinstein, Lorenzo Botto, Amy E. Britt, Stephen R.
          Daniels, Marsha Elixson, Carole A. Warnes and Catherine L. Webb

          Circulation. 2007;115:2995-3014; originally published online May 22, 2007

          Female Hormones

          A potential risk for congenital cardiac defects in offspring from maternal use of oral contraceptives was identified in 2 case-control studies. Wiseman and Dodds-Smith evaluated the case histories included in Heinonen et al study and found that only half were exposed during the critical period of cardiogenesis.

          Oral contraceptive use was no longer significantly associated with congenital heart disease in an analysis restricted to early exposure. Ferencz et al studied mothers of 110 children with heart disease and found no association with maternal hormone therapy. Additionally, a recent meta-analysis failed to document any associations between oral contraceptive use and CCVD; in general, the data are now thought to support their safety.

          An association with maternal use of clomiphene was observed in a case-control study of 126 children with coarctation of the aorta (OR, 4.5; 99% CI, 1.0 to 19.9). No association with maternal use of clomiphene was seen in a case-control study involving 83 infants with conotruncal cardiac defects. In the BWIS, maternal use of clomiphene was found to be associated with an increased risk of tetralogy of Fallot (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.6 to 6.3).

  11. Sen. Vicente Sotto III used a 1977 study in his privilege speech this afternoon. It goes…

    “In a cohort of 50,282 pregnancies, 19 children with cardiovascular defects were born to 1042 women who received female hormones during early pregnancy (18.2 per 1000). Among 49,240 children not exposed in utero to these agents there were 385 with cardiovascular malformations (7.8 per 1000). Six children with cardiovascular defects were born to a subgroup of 278 women who used oral contraceptives during early pregnancy (21.5 per 1000). After the data were controlled for a wide variety of potentially confounding factors by multivariate methods, the association between utero exposure to female hormones and cardiovascular birth defects was statistically significant”.(Source: Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female Sex Hormones by Olli P. Heinonen, M.D., M.SC., Dennis Slone, M.D., Richard R. Monson, M.D., Ernest B. Hook, M.D., and Samuel Shapiro, M.B., F.R.C.P.)

    In 1984, the base data of the study quoted by the emotional senator was reevaluated and an opposite conclusion may be inferred…

    ABSTRACT. A re-evaluation of the base data as reported by Heinonen et al. from the Drug Epidemiology Unit of the Boston Collaborative Perinatal Project (CPP) was undertaken in order to examine particularly three matters which were not fully considered in the publication.

    These were, first, the timing of administration of sex hormones during the index pregnancy, which is relevant to determining whether any statistical association reported between sex hormone exposure and malformations could be causal; second, the incidence of serious maternal vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy, which could be an indication of threatened abortion, which in turn is associated with an increased malformation rate, and in addition is an indication for sex hormone administration; and third, the incidence of malformations or other adverse outcome in previous pregnancies, which, if present, might play a material role in the risk of malformation in the index pregnancy.

    Examination of the records of the 19 cases described by Heinonen et al. as hormone-exposed cardiac-malformed revealed that no preparation containing hormone was administered in two patients, that five cases were given hormones too late in the index pregnancy to have any effect on cardiac organogenesis (which by general consensus begins on day 19 and ends at the latest on day 50 of gestation), that two cases were given hormones too early and two cases had Down’s Syndrome. Thus eight children were exposed to hormones during the critical period of cardiac organogenesis, out of 17 actual hormone takers (47%).

    The description of vaginal bleeding did not allow any conclusions regarding differential rates of threatened abortion. It was found that the incidence of major malformations was 17% in the index group and 4% in the non-malformed group. This suggests that the hormone-exposed patients who gave rise to children with cardiac malformations were a highly selected group.

    The re-evaluation therefore reveals that the incidence of exposure to sex hormones during the critical period of cardiac organogenesis was not significantly different statistically in those women whose children had cardiac lesions as compared to those without such lesions. It is suggested that the result of this re-evaluation should direct the attention of epidemiologists to the quality of their base data.

    Re-examination of the base data of the Boston CPP does not support their reported association between the exposure to female sex hormones during pregnancy and the occurrence of cardiac malformations.

    Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female Sex Hormones: A Reevaluation of Some Base Data
    R.A. WISEMAN AND I.C. DODDS-SMITH
    Medical Department, Schering Chemicals Limited, Burgess Hill, West Sussex 1R.A.Wj, and McKenna and Co., Solicitors, Aldwych, London (1.CB-S.).England

    From TERATOLOGY 30:359-370 (1984)

    • To Tito Sen and the other actors in Senate,

      Here’s a meta-analysis you need to critically appraise. Better get hold of its full text. Thanks.

      Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Sep;76(3 Pt 2):552-7.

      Oral contraception and congenital malformations in offspring: a review and meta-analysis of the prospective studies.
      Bracken MB.

      Source
      Yale Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Yale University Medical School, New Haven, Connecticut.

      Abstract

      The technique of meta-analysis was used to derive typical estimates of the risk of congenital malformations from oral contraceptive (OC) exposure in early pregnancy. Several definitions were used for non-exposure to reduce bias from this source. Congenital heart defects and limb reduction defects were analyzed separately. The typical relative risk from the 12 prospective studies analyzed was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.83, 1.19) for all malformations. The definition of non-exposure did not materially change this estimate. The typical risk for congenital heart defects was 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.72, 1.56) and for limb reduction defects, 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.30, 3.55). This lack of an association between OCs and birth defects in prospective studies agrees with the results of most of the better-designed case-control studies.

  12. Hi Raissa longtime since I posted here.
    I have read the dialogue by sen Sotto and I have to totally disagree, why is the church so against birth management my belief and I am not religious, is that the couple should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to use contraception.
    Why should the state interfere with the decision of the people I always thought this was a democratic country not a dictatorship.
    Just my 2 cents worth

      • I agree but I dont understand why the government even allow the church to have so much power over the people of this fine country, what erks me about the catholic bishops is they go on about how they are holy-er than thou but there have been more catholic priests convicted of child abuse than anything else, now that is supposed to be godly?????

      • The main culprit of our stupidity are the teaching of the catholics bishops. They are the real Anti Christ found in the Bible. They are using the Bible to make money. Lahat na lang pinapaki alaman, wala namang ginagawa kung di ay mag hingi ng abuloy at magdasal daw ng paulit-ulit. Manalangin daw sa mga santo, upang madaling marinig daw ng Diyos, Palakasan pala ang sistema, tulad sa mga kurap na politiko, Kaya sila ang tunay na KURAP,

  14. To those countries who followed this kind of life now are suffering:
    1. There retirement age was adjusted up because there was no next generation to pay for the retired people.
    2. A lot of special child is now born.
    No to RH BILL!!

    • If you use such arguments, you should back them up with scientific evidence. There is none.

    • walang problema kung me kakayahan ang bawat pamilya na mag anak.
      pero, bulag ba tayo? kung sino pa ang nakatira sa kariton, sila ang maraming anak.
      kung sino pa ang minimum wage earner sila pa ang maraming anak.

      bakit yung mayayaman at me alam sa repoductive health, kakaunti ang anak?

      • Dagdag ko lang – Ito bang mga nakatira sa kariton at minimum wage earners ba ang tinutukoy ni ADACAVITY na magbabayad para sa retirement ng mga matatanda? Sa pagkakaalam ko dagdag sila sa mga gastos sa pagtangkilik ng gobyerno?

  15. Senator Sotto cited a lot of authorities to support his claim. Pro-RHB people also do so. Who among them are giving objective interpretation of data, we cannot know, for we know that many “experts” offer opinions based on their own paradigms and consequent advocacies.

    One thought we should take note of, or rather one question we should ask: “Is contraception an attempt to thwart nature?” If the answer is no, then we have nothing to worry about. But if the answer is yes, then take a look around and see what happens when nature strikes back.

    • I am sorry but I believe the rhetorical question should be: “Is contraception an attempt to preserve nature?” If the answer is yes, then we have nothing to worry about. But if the answer is no, then take a look around and see what happens when nature strikes back.

      I say this because I believe that it will always rain but the floods have been caused by the loss of forest watersheds due to kaingeros and illegal logging brought about by increase (population) demand and the blockage of runoff waterways due to illegal squatting and undisciplined garbage dumping. If these are not examples of nature striking back, then tell me what is.

    • Nope. Sotto cited a lot of ‘ancient’ (30+ year old) literature. Bakit di sya makahanap ng mas bago? Probably because current medical and statistical data -you know, the stuff that’s peer reviewed by “experts” and get published in “journals” don’t necessarily agree to what he’s pushing for.

      On the subject of nature and contraception, you should also consider asking this question – “Why is nature so adept in contraception?” – a full 25% (known pregnancies) and up to 50% of undetected pregnancies end up in spontaneous abortion. Check out NIH and search for spontaneous abortions for a full rundown. And don’t worry. The “experts” who get published on the site aren’t offering opinions based on their own paradigms and consequent advocacies. They just did the math.