The politics of RH
About the only issue on which I and many others were “sold” on then candidate and now President Duterte was his support for reproductive health. Even as a candidate and in the early days of his term, he had made clear his belief in the benefits of smaller families and his support for the means to enable couples to regulate their family size. This was not really surprising given his antagonistic attitude toward the Church hierarchy and clergy (even the Pope was not immune from his cursing)—so unlike other political leaders who were and are leery of crossing the Church on an issue like reproductive health.
So even if the full implementation of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health (RPRH) Law was held in abeyance by the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order, the President issued last Jan. 9 an executive order titled “Attaining and Sustaining ‘Zero Unmet Need for Modern Family Planning’ through the Strict Implementation of the [RPRH] Act.”
But in a talk during the opening of the Second National Family Planning Conference held in Cebu, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, main author in the House of the RPRH Law, reminded the public that “the President’s endorsement must be actualized in adequate appropriations, sufficient personnel complement, reduction of teenage pregnancy, containment of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity, increasing the contraceptive prevalence rate, and promoting reproductive health and sexuality education in both public and private schools.”
In short, as Lagman stated: “The President must walk the talk in his advocacy on reproductive health and family planning.” This is, according to Lagman, who is one of the leaders of the tiny opposition bloc in the House, the only item in Mr. Duterte’s agenda that has “gained credit for him.” Other planks in his administration platform—“the continuing summary killings, dismal failure in solving the drug menace and the traffic mess and persistent inclination toward authoritarian rule”—have been consistently and loudly condemned by both local and foreign observers.
A concrete way of “walking the talk” on RH, Lagman pointed out, is through increased and consistent budget support for the RH program.
But since the enactment of the RH Law, “the appropriations for family planning supplies have been inconsistent, erratic and sometimes dwindling,” the lawmaker said.
In 2013, a year after the passage of the RH Law, the appropriation for family planning supplies was P530,719,000; in 2014 it was P1,307,218,000; in 2015 it went down to P1,010,616,000; in 2016 it was further reduced to P599,921,000; in 2017 it was “drastically downgraded” to P165,403,000; and the proposed budget for 2018 is P342,482,000.” This, even as there is need to increase the budget for supplies “considering the expectation that more contraceptives will be certified and recertified soonest.”
“Policymaking is inherently political. The crystallization of a policy in the midst of confrontation between proponents and oppositors is an exercise in politics. The enactment of a law is the product of politics. And I believe that good politics eventually prevails,” Lagman declared.
“There is politics in the full and faithful implementation of the Reproductive Health Law and family planning,” he said. “There is politics in sourcing adequate funding for RH and FP; and there is politics in the ultimate survival of this overridingly important statute.”
For now, the battle for the full implementation of the RHLaw is at a crucial crossroads. Advocates are waiting anxiously for the list of approved contraceptives undergoing the certification process of the Food and Drug Administration, which was tasked by the Supreme Court to determine which drugs and devices are abortifacient or not.
The word is that the standards being used by the FDA are in contradiction with those accepted by certifying bodies, including the World Health Organization. Who is influencing the FDA in this matter? And what does the President have to say about this flouting of his avowed personal and official support for RH?