I really doubt if our lawmakers will decide on this issue on philosophical grounds so I will not bring this debate to that level. From a mundane standpoint of policy analysis and program implementation, institutionalizing a flawed program and channeling more resources into it without making necessary adjustments based on careful study will not in anyway help in achieving our desired outcomes.
The anti-tuberculosis program has been in place since the 1970s and up until now we are working to fight this disease. At least in TB, we now know why the earlier programs did not work–common reason is that poor families cannot afford and sustain the six-month rehabilitation required in the treatment of the disease. Worse, if treatment has been started but is not completed, TB comes back with a vengeance.
Population control has likewise been in place since the 1970s and up until now we are working on it but why? What worked and did not work in the past? Show me the numbers. Unless someone answers this question, I will continue to believe that blindly putting in more resources into it as justified by the RH bill without critically looking at the systems, processes, and outcomes (or the lack of it) will just be a waste of resources. If the bill does not get approved, the existing program will still continue sans the new appropriation and maybe the mobile health centers–so what? Mothers will still be cared for, LGUs are still mandated to offer health services and hire health professionals, information will still be available (hey, we were taught about birds and the bees, and condoms and IUDs and pills when were in grade 5), artificial birth control products will remain in the market, so what’s the big deal? If population continues to grow, it only means something wrong goes unattended and RH Bill does not offer new, alternative, innovative solution to the problem. Any implementation problem that gets in the way of reaching the goal will not be solved by the bill.
Read the bill here 115029777! as well as the several other related policies and programs it covers (the bill is essentially is redundant). I am pro-life, I am pro-rights of women, but I am certainly anti-inefficiency and anti-corruption (just guess what will happen to the new appropriation promoted by the RH bill). No philosophy, no passion involved in my arguments. Just one honest-to-goodness population control program evaluation anytime between 1970s and today justifying the increased resources to be plowed into it and I shall support RH Bill.