Beginning in 1967, USAID began assuming 80 percent of the country`s total family planning assets (contraceptives), or $3 million per year. In 1975, the United States adopted as its policy the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200). The policy places “paramount importance” on population control measures and contraceptive promotion in 13 populous countries, including the Philippines, to control rapid population growth, which they see as detrimental to U.S. domestic socio-political interests, as “the U.S. economy will need large and growing amounts of minerals from abroad.” And these countries can destabilize opposition forces. against the United States. He recommends to the United States. “Influence national leaders” and that “the UN, USIA, and USAID should strive to improve global support for people-centred efforts by placing greater emphasis on the media and other programs to educate and motivate the population. [6] Birth control has long been available in the Philippines to middle-class and affluent women, but it is out of reach for the country`s poor. Abortion is illegal, with no explicit exception. A new law in the Philippines that “requires the government to address the unmet need for voluntary family planning information and supplies” and all public schools to teach age-appropriate sex education went into effect on January 16, notes Babatunde Osotimehin, executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
in a Huffington Post comment “Global Motherhood.” “Supporters of the law hail the law as a breakthrough for women`s health and rights, saying it will reduce maternal mortality and unintended pregnancies, especially among adolescent girls, support development, and enable all parts of society to freely and responsibly decide when, if and how often to have children,” he adds. The Senate`s policy brief, entitled “Promoting Reproductive Health,” the history of reproductive health in the Philippines dates back to 1967, when leaders from 12 countries, including Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, signed the Population Declaration. [3] [4] The Philippines agreed that the population problem should be considered a key element of long-term economic development. Therefore, the Population Commission was established to lobby for a lower standard for family size and to provide information and services aimed at reducing birth rates. [5] As mayor of Davao City in the southern Philippines, he not only championed contraception, but also offered cash rewards to men who underwent vasectomy, the Associated Press reports. And he promised to bring the same attitude toward family planning to the national level. The Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on State and Church Issues have released nine talking points on the Reproductive Health Act.
Among other things, they proposed a study on the importance of conception in the constitution, and if that means fertilization, abortifacients “should be banned now and regardless of whether the reproductive health law is passed or not.” They also proposed “parallel information and training programs, one for natural family planning (NFP) and one for artificial family planning methods.” [76] Philippine Star columnist Jose Sison criticized the fact that “a Catholic theological school has in fact publicly proposed using taxpayer money to train Filipinos to use objectively and inherently wrong methods,” citing “empirical and scientific evidence confirming the harmful and harmful effects of contraceptives on individuals and society.” [77] The national debate is seen as part of a broader culture war. [66] The adoption or non-adoption of the law has negative effects, depending on the point of view. Proponents say failure to pass the bill will no longer make the Philippines a backward state and will not be able to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, particularly those on poverty reduction and maternal health. This will mean breaking international commitments and slowing down modernization. In addition, the poor will not have free access to the family planning assistance that many want, and therefore they will have more children than they can keep, and will not have the money to invest in education to break the intergenerational poverty in which they are trapped. Supporters also accuse the Catholic Church of holding the Philippines “hostage” and violating the separation of church and state. [67] They argue that reduced population growth will lead to improved quality of life and economic development. Recently, two sponsors of the Reproductive Health Bill changed their position on the population and development provisions of the Act. Rehearsals. Emerciana de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan wanted to delete three provisions that state that “gender equality and women`s empowerment are central elements of reproductive health, population and development”, that integrate responsible parenting and family planning programs into poverty reduction initiatives and designate the Commission on Population and Development, or POPCOM, as a coordinating body.
Representatives of both lists insist that poverty is not due to overpopulation, but to inequality and corruption. [27] The bill mandates the government to “impartially promote all effective natural and modern methods of family planning that are medically safe and legal.” [8] The Philippine government`s longstanding hostility to modern contraceptives has contributed to the deaths of 4,500 women each year from pregnancy complications, 800,000 unwanted births, and 475,000 illegal abortions.