Sotto resumes attacks as evidence surfaces he plagiarized parts of his initial speech
[NOTE about the speech below:
The text of Part 2 below is the official release from his Senate office. The paragraph which contains question marks is part of his released speech:
? ?$90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network RHAN) for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011); ? ?$6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009); ? ?$1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009, and 2010;$1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009); ? ?$39,000 to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007); ? ?$88,000 to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and ? ?$75,000 to “Catholics” for Choice to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009). ]
Mr. President, my dear colleagues:
Before I proceed Mr. President, I would like to take exception to the statements made by Dr. Cabral and to a certain extent by Congresswoman Garin, in reaction, to my disclosure and confession on the death of my first son, Vincent Paul. I find their statements callous 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.
Linawin ko lang mabuti:
Diane po ang pangalan ng pills na ginamit ng aking asawa noon. Supervised po siya ng doktor habang ginagamit nya ito. Intellehente naman po ang asawa ko, alam niya kung paano gumamit nito. Malinaw po ang sinabi sa amin ng kanyang doctor, katuwang ang aking ina, Dra. Herminia Castelo Sotto, ** na ang pagbubuntis niya kahit may contraceptives ang maaring naging sanhi ng kumplikasyon, prematurity at eventually pagkamatay ng anak namin. Bakit ko po iimbentuhin ang katotohanang ito?
Maliwanag, nagko-contraceptives, nagbuntis. Yun ang issue.
Meron naman din po na mga pag-aaral na makakapagpatunay na mayroong masamang epekto ang contraceptives sa kalusugan ng mga bata na pinanganak ng mga ina na gumagamit ng contraceptives. Ito po ay pinatototohanan ng mga pag-aaral at hindi ko imbento lamang.
In the book entitled “The Greatest Experiment Ever Performed on Women, Exploding the Estrogen Myth” by Barbara Seaman, it was stated that those who take pills but still got pregnant have more abnormal children and lower I.Q. (Hindi naman po siguro kelangan pa na maging doctor ang isang tao para lamang malaman ang maaaring maging kumplikasyon ng pag-gamit ng pills ngunit nagbuntis pa din diba?)
“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.)
Sa unang bahagi ng ating turno en contra, sa aking palagay ay naipaliwanag ko na ang mga sumusunod:
1. That contraceptives are abortifacients.
2. That contraceptives pose health risks to women and may even expose them to serious health problems and death.
3. That contraceptives have harmful effects to children born to mothers who were using contraceptives and still got pregnant.
Doon po sa mga bumabatikos at nang-gagalaiti sa akin, sagutin ninyo yung mga yun, punto por punto, at hindi atakihin ang persona ko. Sa facebook.. sa twitter.. kung anu-ano ang sinasabi, hindi naman nila naiintindihan ang punto ko. May mga nananakot pa. Kung sa mga drug-lords nga hindi ako natakot, sa kanila pa? Ang lambot nga ng dating ng umpisa ng turno en contra ko, tapos gagalitin nila ako?
Gusto kong bigyang diin na hindi ko tinututulan ang paggamit ng contraceptives dito sa Pilipinas at lalong hindi ko pinagbabawal ang paggamit nito. Hindi ko intensyon na panghimasukan ang personal na bahagi ng buhay pamilya ng bawat Pilipino. Ang sa akin lamang, bilang mambabatas na pinagkatiwalaan ng nakararami, obligasyon ko na suriin, busisiin at pag-aralang mabuti ang pangkalahatang implikasyon ng bill na ito sa lahat ng mamamayan, ngayon at sa susunod na henerasyon.
Inihain ko, nung Lunes, ang mga mahahalagang puntong dapat isaalangalang bago natin ipasa ang batas na into, partikular ang nakangangambang epekto nito sa kalusugan ng ating mga kababaihan, at maging sa kanilang mga anak tulad ng aking masaklap na karanasan.
Given all these repercussions, would we still want to take the risk and brush aside all the probable deterimental effects of these family planning supplies and devices by passing, without scrunity, the RH Bill? Ako po ay nagmamalasakit sa lahat ng nagtiwala sa akin kaya naman aking binubusisi ang bawat aspeto ng bill na ito. Sana po ay maintindihan ninyo na ginagampanan ko lamang ang aking tungkulin sa bayan.
Today with your kind indulgence, allow me to proceed to the second part of my turno en contra. Last Monday, I mentioned that I will show how the RH Bill violates Philippine sovereignty. My point in stating that is we should not be pushed over by any state or international organizations in determining what is best for our country. Hindi po porque ginagawa na nila sa kanilang bansa, ay dapat gawin din natin. Tandaan natin na may iba’t iba tayong kultura, kasaysayan at tradisyon, at higit sa lahat, pangangailangan. Sino sila para magdikta sa atin? Hindi tayo gaya nila na iba ang pagpapahalaga sa pagkakabuklod-buklod ng pamilyang Pilipino at pagpapahalaga sa buhay ng tao.
I will prove that this bill has been significantly influenced by various organizations, both local and international, which are of doubtful character. They have been pushing for the passage of this bill to serve their ulterior motives far-off from the aims of the proponents of the bill.
The sponsors of the measure openly admitted that the statistics used in the bill were obtained from various sources. Regrettably, the credibility and trustworthiness of these sources are questionable. And who are these sources? Reliable ba ang sources na ito? May pinapaboran ba ang source dahil makikinabang sila dito kalaunan? Dapat natin itanong ito sa mga tao at organisasyon na aktibong nagtutulak sa pagpasa nito. Tandaan natin mula 1997, ilang Kongreso na ang nakalipas at panay- panay ang pagsulpot ng RH bill, at parati itong hindi naipapasa. Hindi ba dapat nating gawing masinsinan ang pagsusuri kung talaga bang kailangan natin ito? At ano ang motibo ng mga organisasyong nagtutulak nito?
Halimbawa na lamang, nabanggit noon ni Sen. Pia Cayetano ang ilang statistical materials na isinagawa daw ng National Statistics Office, kasama dito ang Philippine 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey.
Ang problema, ang nagpondo sa paggawa ng mga statistical data na ito ay ang United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Malamang na ang resulta ng kanilang pinondohang materials ay papabor sa kagustuhan ng nagbigay ng pondo. The USAID, for the information of the body is the agency which the United States uses as its principal instrument to control and reduce the population through birth control worldwide. It is also the same agency which funded the DKT’s project. Dhramendra Kumar Tyagi or DKT is the largest manufacturer of trust condoms, pills and other contraceptives. Nais ng DKT na lumaganap ang paggamit ng contraceptive products sa Pilipinas. Magaling naman tayo sa simpleng lohika di ba? Ulitin natin, USAID ang magpopondo sa NSO para lumabas ang impormasyong kailangan ng population control sa bansa, at USAID din ang tumutulong sa DKT na mapalaganap ang produkto nila. Aba ang galing ano? Gagawa ka ng demand for contraceptives, tapos ikaw ang magsu-supply ng solusyon. Magandang ideya sa marketing pero hindi sa paggawa ng batas. Sana wag nating gawing pain ang ating bansa sa ganitong pageeksperimento.
Also, the Sponsor used statistical materials provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) to support their position. But as correctly pointed out by Senate President Enrile, the Guttmacher Institute came into existence as the marketing arm of Planned Parenthood in 1968 and has masterminded the public manipulation of reproduction in the United States, promoting abortion, sterilization, and amniocentesis and genetic screening, as well as foreign population control. The Institute is predisposed to a particular line of attitude in relation to population and birth, and that is to control population and not to deal with health concerns.
Ang concern ko lang naman, sana mapagkakatiwalaan ang mga data na ginagamit natin sa bill na ito. Because of the delicate nature of the measure and its eventual impact on the future and well-being of the country and the people, we should be assured that the statistics presented to support the bill are beyond doubt. These statistics should be gathered, compiled, analyzed and synthesized by persons or institutions with no personal biases or motives in the bill. We cannot simply rely on these questionable institutions to provide the statistics for us, since these statistical data would help us make intelligible and accurate judgment on the issue at hand.
Sa totoo lang, yung mga figures na sinubmit dito sa plenary tungkol sa number of unintended pregnanies, induced abortions, hospitalizations due to complications of abortion, mistimed births or unwanted babies, or maternal deaths ay mahirap din na tanggapin. They appear to be mere estimates or extrapolations of figures and are not mathematically exact.
I have been severely criticized when I questioned the truthfulness of the claim that 11 mothers die every day. Ngunit bakit naman hindi ko ku-kwestyunin ang figure na ito, kung alam ko na hindi ito tama? Kung sa figures pa lang, sumasablay na sila, what more sa contents na mismo ng bill di ba?
The proponents of the bill are saying that 11 Filipino women die every day when they talked about maternal mortality. They have not, however, supported this claim with accurate and consistent data.
Kung tutuusin sa pinagawa ko sa mga staff ko, hindi pa nga umabot man lang sa kalahati ng 11 maternal deaths ang nakalap nila sa mga hospitals sa Pilipinas nung 2011 eh. For example, sa Nueva Viscaya Provincial Hospital, ang maternal deaths na naitala nila ay 2 lamang sa 2011. Let me emphasize, this is for the entire year of 2011, hindi po ito kada-araw. Sa Pangasinan Provincial Hospital, 4 lamang ang naitalang namatay sa panganganak sa nakaraang taon. Sa Batangas Regional Hospital, 7 out of 2584 deliveries ang naitala .27%. Hindi pa nga umabot sa 1%. Sa Cavite Naval Hospital, wala silang naitala na namatay sa panganganak sa taong 2011. Kaya ang hirap paniwalaan ang kanilang figure na 11 mothers die every day.
Nagtataka lang talaga ako saan at paano nila nakuha ang figure na ito. Kung ang National Statistics Coordinating Board nga, walang maibigay. Ang Philippine Association of Hospitals nirefer lang kami sa Department of Health. Saan naman kaya kinukuha ng DOH ang mga figures na ito? Diyan na ngayon papasok ang mga organizations na ipe-presenta ang mga gawa-gawa nilang figures. Para ano? Para mailihis ang mga mambabatas at masunod ang mga gusto nilang mangyari sa bill na ito.
Uulitin ko lamang po, hindi po sa wala akong pakialam sa mga nanay na namamatay, ang punto ko po ay ayokong gamitin nila ang maling figures at statistics na ito para lamang hikayatin ang nakakarami na ipasa ang RH bill. Maling konklusyon po ang kahihinatnan nitong maling figures. Gaya po ng nasabi ko nung Lunes, malamang kapag naipasa ang RH bill ay mas marami pang kababaihan ang mamamatay dahil sa contraceptives. Ayaw ko po mangyari yon
I think it was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s hated propagandist, who said that a lie repeated several times would eventually be accepted as fact by the people.
This is exactly what is happening now since several documents have pointed out that the so-called 11 maternal deaths a day in the Philippines is a canard and yet RH proponents continued to hoist it as gospel truth. I challenge the RH bill supporters to give me the names of faces of the 11 mothers who died in one particular day if they want me to believe in their claim.
O sige po, ipagpalagay na natin na tama ang statistics na binibigay ng mga foreign institutions na ito. Pero sa mga datos nila, hindi pa rin 11 maternal deaths ang lumalabas eh.
Here are the facts:
The September 2010 report of the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations International Children’s Educational Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Bank, estimated annual maternal deaths in the Philippines at Two Thousand One Hundred (2,100) in 2008. That is equivalent to 5.75 deaths a day, which is way off from the 11 per day. This was clearly down from the 2000 level of Four Thousand One Hundred (4,100), or 11.2 a day, which was published in a report seven years ago by the same international agencies.
It should be noted that the proponents’ population projections and maternal mortality ratios (MMRs), or deaths per 100,000 live births, came from a census conducted 11 years ago. The UN Population Division’s estimates were released just recently and, therefore, should be more reliable.
O ayan, for the sake of argument, PRO-RH figures themselves result in 5.75 maternal deaths a day at hindi 11 deaths tulad ng kanilang ipinagpipilitan. Gusto ko lamang i-correct ang figures nila.
The strong pressure and the massive propaganda materials emanating from various groups cannot simply be put aside. They have been doing everything to impose their hidden agenda through the RH bill. The proponents of the bill admitted that they sought the assistance of various non-government organizations specifically to learn about the effects of certain procedures or nuances of terminologies used in the bill. This in effect gave these organizations the opportunity to incorporate their distorted beliefs and principles in the bill.
Now let me name these organizations. Let me start with foreign organizations that surreptitiously impose their hidden agenda through this bill.
1. By virtue of National Security Study Memorandum 200, issued by Henry Kissinger who is the source of the entire family planning, population and poverty reduction programs of the United States, all loans, grants and aid coming from the United States and western powers must be based on reduction of population through birth control. Since the USAID is the principal instrument for the so-called development programs, there are NGOs and government agencies in the Philippines that have been contacted, supported and funded by it. USAID, World Health Organization, World Bank and all economic agencies were given a directive to gear their policies and programs towards promoting the reduction of the world’s population especially in less developed countries (LDCs).
2. United Nations agencies are using UN resources to advocate their agenda on a local level in order to bypass cultural and religious resistance. Gamal Serour, president of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), reported that UNFPA has a program in 25 countries to lobby religious leaders into dropping objections to the agenda. These programs are aimed at “re-educating” religious leaders and convincing them to accept their population control programs. UN Secretariat released a report from the UN Human Rights Council calling on all nations to accept that women and girls must be granted access to legal abortion in order for them to fully enjoy their human rights. The report, written by UN Special Rapporteur Anand Grover, links abortion on demand with the fundamental right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. According to Grover, “Criminal laws penalizing and restricting induced abortion are the paradigmatic examples of impermissible barriers to the realization of women’s right to health and must be eliminated.” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon opened a women’s conference with the announcement of a new document titled: “Investing in our Common Future: Joint Action Plan for Women’s and Children’s Health,” intended to accelerate progress towards MDGs 4 and 5. A draft of the Joint Action Plan circulated at the conference cited examples of actions to be taken by governments and policy makers. The draft insists that States “fully integrate the following into all primary healthcare facilities: family planning and abortion-related care among other health issues. The draft Joint Action Plan also called on all states to “increase governments’ portion of budget allocated to health and build on existing regional commitments to increase access to sexual and reproductive health services.”
Douglas Sylva, Phd. reported on March 5, 2004 that former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan congratulated and encouraged the leadership and work of the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC), a group working for worldwide abortion on demand for women and girls. Where legal abortion is restricted to those abortions considered necessary to save the life of the mother, the IWHC recommends that abortion providers simply “adopt a broader” definition of what constitutes a threat to a woman’s life by considering the risk of death if she seeks a clandestine procedure.”
He further states that the message of former Sec.Gen. Kofi Annan implies that if skillfully argued, abortion advocates can skirt restrictive abortion laws.
3. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), according to its website has for more than three decades, lobbied worldwide for the liberalization and eventual repeal of all laws that place any restrictions whatever on access to abortion. This stance is reflected in all of its major policy statements, as described in the IPPF’s Vision 2000 Strategic Plan. In its Vision 2000 document, which is considered to be the marching orders” for all its members, repeatedly and unambigiously calls for the legalization of abortion in countries where the procedure is currently unlawful. Currently, IPPF is operating in the Philippines through its member, Family Planning Organizations of the Philippines. FPOP had actively participated during committee hearings.
This is IPPF’s vision: “We believe that a woman has the right to choose and access safe abortion services and we advocate for changes in legislation to support this.”
This is the true meaning of Pro-Choice.
Sa totoo lang meron iba pang mga international organizations na nakapasok na dito sa Pilipinas at nagbibigay at nagpapalaganap ng mga serbisyo at nagpapamahagi ng mga artificial contraceptives sa mga Pilipino. Ito ay para lubos na tanggapin pa nga ng mga Pilipino ang konsepto ng contraceptives na tulad din ng isinusulong ng IPPF. Isa na dito ang Marie Stopes International na may sangay dito sa Pilipinas.
Before I proceed to other organizations, Mr. President, my dear colleagues, please allow me to talk a little more about Margaret Sanger, who founded the IPPF. The three major thrusts of her work are reflected in today’s IPPF’s programs throughout the world and these are: 1) free sex: 2) eugenics; and 3) birth control.
Sanger, in her first pamphlet listed the methods of birth control, among which she included abortion. She knew that once sex education and birth control were accepted, abortion would follow. Mapapansin po natin na sa U.S. at Canada, napalawig ang pagtanggap sa konsepto ng aborsyon sa pamamagitan ng pagtulak sa birth control. At ito din ngayon ang kanilang estratehiya para sa kalaunan ay matanggap na din ng mga Pilipino ang konseptong ito.
Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed she wrote in her book Woman and the New Race: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for IPPF.
But there was even a darker side to Margaret Sanger: a side that IPPF people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in “eugenics.” Eugenics is defined as “the application of the laws of hereditary to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.”
To Sanger this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered to be of “dysgenic stock” in order to create a race of superior intellectuals. Ito na rin po yung tinatawag na eugenics–if you are weak, useless, uneducated and poor, you have no right in this world. Sa medaling salita, ang gusto mangyari ng konsepto na eugenics ay ang magkaroon ng birth control para ang matitira na lamang sa mundo ay ang lahing na superior at intelektwal.
Hindi kaya ito ang gusto mangyari ng mga nagtutulak ng RH bill?
Here again we have shades of Hitler’s ambition to create a super Aryan race that prompted his sick mind to eliminate all Jews in Germany and neighboring countries.
In an article she wrote in 1922, Sanger defended the U.S. immigration policy of not allowing the entry to the US of the feeble-minded or diseased people by saying that this policy “was reasonable and eugenic.”
Sanger also attempted to unduly influence Mahatma Gandhi to adhere to her distorted principles. Fortunately, Sanger’s attempts to do so proved futile. The two activists met in December of 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control, population and the plight of women in India. At that time, Sanger staunchly advocated the global use of artificial contraceptives and, in order to make the acceptance of such contraceptives easier to the Indian populace, sought to make Gandhi an ally. While Sanger claimed she merely wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of the widespread use of artificial birth control methods. Gandhi firmly stood by his belief that the spiritual bonds of marriage are strengthened by sexual abstinence. He thus completely rejected Sanger’s plea for contraception as a tool to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative sex, which he viewed as immoral lust.
Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that
“Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil.”
Between a person who had been actively promoting free sex, eugenics and birth control and a person who had been an advocate of nonviolence, discipline, chastity, control of the palate, sino ba ang dapat nating paniwalaan? Kanino bang yapak ang dapat nating sundin? Kaninong mga pangaral ang mas akma sa ating kinagisnang kaugalian at paniniwala? Klarong-klaro naman po, di ba?
Now, let me proceed with the other organizations backing up the bill. I will disclose the workings of local organizations that push the passage of the RH Bill. Sa aking pagsisiyasat, pagsaliksik at pagmamatyag sa bawat galaw ng iba’t ibang organisasyon na may kinalaman sa usaping ito, aking napag-alaman na may mga lihim na hangarin ang iba sa mga naturang organisasyong ito, na nagkukubli sa kanilang sinasabing intensyon na mapabuti ang kalusugan ng ating mga kababaihan. Aking natuklasan na may mga local organizations na ginagamit ng kanilang mga katuwang na foreign organizations upang unti-unting imulat ang kamalayan ng sambayanang Pilipino sa moderno at liberal na reproductive health schemes, simula sa paggamit ng artificial contraceptives hanggang sa malaunang pagtanggap ng bansa sa konsepto ng abortion. This is the big picture, and the RH Bill is an important detail to complete this picture.
1. There are local organizations that were supposedly receiving funds from international organizations, such as the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP). FPOP, claims to be a VERY PROUD member of the number one international organization, which happens to promote abortion worldwide. IPPF’s recent financial statement reveals that FPOP received a subsidy amounting to $625,095 or almost Php 27.5M in 2011. It thus appears that FPOP have already adopted IPPF’s abortion advocacy. FPOP’s website displays the organization’s support to the use of abortive facilities. In fact, the FPOP posted on its website an instructional brochure discussing different methods of abortion, depending on the weeks of pregnancy. Furthermore, FPOP’s website is linked to a website named Women on Waves which provides contacts to abortion clinics worldwide. Kapalit ng malaking halagang ipinamamahagi ng IPPF sa mga myembro nito ay ang pagsunod sa mga programang isinusulong ng IPPF, tulad ng pagsasabatas ng abortion at pagpapalaganap ng artificial contraceptives.
2. Another organization receiving financial support from these International Organizations is the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network (RHAN). I have discovered, and this was confirmed during one of the the interpellations on this measure that RHAN submitted a budget proposal to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) containing a budget allocation for “nurturing legislators”, to expedite the passage of the RH Bill.
Aside from the provision to nurture legislators, there are also monetary allocations for development, production, and dissemination of information segregated into target audiences : for media and professionals, and communities mobilizations.
3. LIKHAAN, an affiliate of RHAN, is also one of the local organizations actively pushing for the RH Bill. It reportedly received funds from the UNFPD for the passage of the RH Bill. Likhaan openly supports abortion, as its features in its website step by step procedure on how to abort a baby. To make matters worse, the instructional material desperately intends to reach the Filipino masses by using Filipino language and putting pictures that clearly illustrate how to abort. In addition, there is a video featuring Dr. Junice Melgar, head of Likhaan who was quoted as saying, “If you are pro-women, you will have contacts to the services that are underground,” and whose other statements refer to abortion service providers.
In an article entitled Philippines: Pro-abortion groups funding RH bill backers, it revealed the following financial grants granted to RH lobby groups:
? ?$90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network RHAN) for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011); ? ?$6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009); ? ?$1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009, and 2010;$1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009); ? ?$39,000 to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007); ? ?$88,000 to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and ? ?$75,000 to “Catholics” for Choice to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009)
Sa laki ng budget ng mga organisasyong ito, hindi na kataka-takang napakasigla ng kampanya nila para sa RH Bill sa radyo, telebisyon, pahayagan at lalo na sa internet.
4. Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines, which actively participated in the deliberations of the RH Bill, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, excludes the unborn from the definition of “children” and claims that “calling the unborn a child is going beyond what the constitution provides.” This organization further claims that only children have human rights, excepting the unborn.
Kung hindi kinikilala ng organisasyong ito na may karapatang pantao ang mga batang nasa sinapupunan pa lamang ng kanilang ina, hindi malayong tinatanggap nila ang ideya ng abortion tulad ng pagtanggap ng mga foreign organizations na nagsusulong nito sa ating bansa.
These foreign organizations underhandedly seek to legalize abortion in countries where it is still a crime. And that I believe is exactly what they’re doing now in our country through this bill. This bill is a foreign-dictated policy, forcing us to adopt population control and abortion, contrary to the values that we uphold.
Sana wag tayong magbulag-bulagan sa katotohanan na iniimpluwensyahan tayo ng mga banyaga sa pamamagitan ng bill na ito. Gumagamit sila ng mga mapanlinlang na impormasyon upang sa ganun ay tayo ay makumbinsi nila na tanggapin ang kanilang mga baluktot na paniniwala.
They want us to believe that the use of contraceptives lowers the number of abortions. On the surface, this claim appears to be reasonable. It seems obvious that, if one uses some type of birth control when engaging in sexual intercourse, one will be less likely to get pregnant than if one used no means of birth control. So the general public believes this claim and sees the distribution of contraceptives as part of the solution to the “abortion problem”. Yet there are studies, supported by facts transpiring in the last 50 years, that cast a large cloud of doubt over this conclusion.
In fact, in a study undertaken by Raymond Pearl, a John Hopkins professor and noted authority on this matter, wrote: “Those who practice contraception as part of their sex life, by their own admission, resort to criminally induced abortions about three times as often proportionately as do their comparable non-contraceptor contemporaries.”
Also in a report prepared for the Royal Commission on Population in Great Britain found that the incidence of induced abortion as a percentage of all pregnancies was nine times higher for women using contraceptives than for women not using birth control.
With the foregoing, I think I have adequately shown that the proponents of the bill have been misled by deceptive and misleading information to push for the bill’s passage.
Thank you, Mr. President.
To see official press release, pls click here.
regarding the above speech quotation;
“? ?$90,000 to the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network RHAN) for promotion, from the UN Population Fund or UNFPA (2011); ? ?$6.6 million to Planned Parenthood arm Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) from UNFPA (2009); ? ?$1.6 million to FPOP from IPPF for the years 2005, 2009, and 2010;$1.2 million to PSPI from Marie Stopes (2009); ? ?$39,000 to Likhaan from Planned Parenthood (2007); ? ?$88,000 to FPOP in 2009 from Marie Stopes for RH kits; and ? ?$75,000 to “Catholics” for Choice to promote RH, from the Wallace Global Fund (2009). ]…”
Wala pa ring nakapansin why question marks were prefix to entries.
That reflects T Sotto’s staff that lack proof readers and top notch researchers. It can mean a lot about the accuracy of data, or wasn’t double checked if entries, as part of their boss’ main rebuttal part 2 speech were accurate or just picked from the ‘public domain’ in haste.
copy n paste, itanong na lang ni boss sa audience… doble ? para itaas ang bosses. LOL!
That is ‘ningas cogon’ – bahala na attitude. Bahala na ang media outlets na magkorrect … at mag proof read… pati spell check. [wala namang maniniwala kay boss Tito.]
as i quote: “Gusto kong bigyang diin na hindi ko tinututulan ang paggamit ng contraceptives dito sa Pilipinas at lalong hindi ko pinagbabawal ang paggamit nito. Hindi ko intensyon na panghimasukan ang personal na bahagi ng buhay pamilya ng bawat Pilipino. Ang sa akin lamang, bilang mambabatas na pinagkatiwalaan ng nakararami, obligasyon ko na suriin, busisiin at pag-aralang mabuti ang pangkalahatang implikasyon ng bill na ito sa lahat ng mamamayan, ngayon at sa susunod na henerasyon.:
hindi ba sa umpisa palang bias na sya sa pananaw! it is very obvious na ANTI RH BILL si Sen Sotto he is boastful in showing to people his side. so paano kami maniniwala sa credibility nya? o baka naman kinukuha lng nya ang simpatya ng mga catholics ? hindi po ba ang batas ang pinaguusapan ng mga “law makers” at may tamang lugar… kung dumating sa punto na di nila kayang solusyonan di taong bayan ang sumagot… sa kaso ng RH Bill… marami na ang sumasawsaw…
ang malupit pa, dapat ang tao against sa proposed LAW eh bakit sa LAW MAKERS sila nagagalit? proposal plng naman for deliberation di pa batas…
Sen. Tito’s objection based on sovereignty is a fallacious one because we have been receiving foreign aids for decades under various disguises and even accepting hand-me-down hardware to our AFP ! The best way to deal with his concerns was to talk to him in private with fellow female Senate colleagues in a confidential setting and not publicly confront him and paint him in a corner. That is a much better approach as I believe he is a rationale and intelligent person who can listen to reasons. He don’t need to vote for RH Bill, but ask him not to be a roadblock for others health and needs !
Raymond Pearl (3 June 1879– 17 November 1940) was an American biologist, regarded as one of the founders of biogerontology. He spent most of his career at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
Pearl was a prolific writer of academic books, papers and articles, as well as a committed populariser and communicator of science. At his death, 841 publications were listed against his name.
Pearl was widely known for his lust for life and his love of food, drink, music and parties
EUGENICS, a dictionary says:
1. The science of improving the qualities of human race, especially the careful selection of parents
2. The science of improving the offspring.
3. The study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating)
From other article:
The first American biologist to publicly rebuke eugenics, Pearl earned a mark as a pioneer in the annals of science. The American Philosophical Society describes him as “an inveterate opponent of most eugenic policies, and critic of eugenic research.”
However, those lines do not reveal other more ambiguous details about Pearl’s relationship with eugenics, starting with the fact that for many years he eagerly supported eugenics: “It is of prime importance for the welfare of state or nation that those stocks which are on the whole endowed with the best traits should contribute more, many more, individuals to the next generation than should those stocks whose characteristics are on the whole bad,” he wrote in 1908.
Why did a man who once embraced eugenics decide to renounce it? Historians say that studying the past can help current generations avoid its mistakes. Examining the history of eugenics, specifically the life of one of its key scientists, might illuminate difficult issues facing today’s scientists as they navigate the ethically perilous terrain of modern genetics.
However, the experience of Raymond Pearl offers no easy answers. He had some good and noble ideas, but he also harbored troubling beliefs about race. His story is not a Greek drama in which the scales fall from the eyes. Raymond Pearl was a man who changed his views — somewhat.
Dapat hindi sya nagququote ng mga sulat ni Raymond Pearl, Gandhi, etc. kung ayaw pala nya magpadikta sa iba kung ano ang mga dapat gawin sa bansa natin.
my post prior to this is still awaiting moderation…anyways, you guys may want to visit this site and see how really dense Sotto really is…another plagiarism!
I was updating something related to this.
“While Sanger claimed she merely wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of the widespread use of artificial birth control methods. Gandhi firmly stood by his belief that the spiritual bonds of marriage are strengthened by sexual abstinence. He thus completely rejected Sanger’s plea for contraception as a tool to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative sex, which he viewed as immoral lust.”
guess what? another plagiarism by our dear senator.
this is the original text:
While Sanger claimed she mainly wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of birth control. Gandhi promoted the spiritual bonds of marriage, which, he argued, were strengthened by continence. He reluctantly agreed to consider sanctioning the safe period or rhythm method, but rejected Sanger’s plea for contraception to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative sex, which he viewed as immoral lust.
“Sana wag tayong magbulag-bulagan sa katotohanan na iniimpluwensyahan tayo ng mga banyaga sa pamamagitan ng bill na ito. Gumagamit sila ng mga mapanlinlang na impormasyon upang sa ganun ay tayo ay makumbinsi nila na tanggapin ang kanilang mga baluktot na paniniwala”
In the light of the Senator’s “ill-adviced” use of quotes and references in his speeches, i’d say this is a case of the Tupperware container calling the kettle PLASTIC!