Sunday, April 13, 2014

Why pro-Lifers won in RH case before SC 

CONSTITUTIONAL: For Sunday reading, we share this email of Bishop Emeritus José C. Sorra of Legazpi explaining why the pro-Lifers who had questioned the constitutionality of the Reproductive Health Law (RA 10354) before the Supreme Court actually won. He said:

“The Court has ruled that the RH Law is not unconstitutional, except for eight sections which were struck down for violating basic constitutional rights, mainly, the right to life and religious freedom.
“The latter are not insignificant: These are mostly penal provisions applying to persons who refuse, on grounds of conscience rights, to render services, give RH information, sell or dispense contraceptives.
“While the press hereabouts banners stories that the Church lost, on the contrary, on a larger plane, the April 8, 2014, decision of our Supreme Court is a WINdfall for the cause of LIFE.”
*      *      *
WHY LIFE WON: “Through an obiter, the Court explained the beginning of human life. It cannot be clearer:
Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1 
 
‘In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the framers of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization.’ The Court cited a standard medical/embryology textbook (O’Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola, Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wily-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29)
“The Court continued, demolishing in its path the idea that implantation is the beginning of human life:
“ ‘For the above reasons, the Court cannot subscribe to the theory advocated by Hon. (Edcel) Lagman (former member of Congress and primary author of the original RH bill) that life begins at implantation. This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object – it is a living human being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes.’ (Decision, p. 51).”
*      *      *
AND HERE’S THE RUB: “(The Court still talking…) ‘Implantation has been conceptualized only for convenience by those who had population control in mind. To adopt it would constitute textual infidelity not only to the RH Law but also to the Constitution.’ (p. 51)
“That is what the pro-Life advocacy has been saying all along and the Court had confirmed it.
“Not content, the Court says it again: ‘To repeat, it is the Court’s position that life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. When a fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall, its viability is sustained but that instance of implantation is not the point of beginning of life. It started earlier….
“ ‘And as defined by the RH Law, any drug or device that induces abortion, that is, which kills or destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb, is an abortifacient.’ (Decision, p. 51)”
*      *      *
TOAST TO LIFE!: “For me, in engaging this prime issue we raised, the Court just opened its arms to all future generations. The Decision is a toast to LIFE!
“As we in the Philippines brace ourselves for the widespread enforcement of this new law, these pronouncements of the Supreme Court will figure greatly in the way the core provisions of the law will be used on women. The distribution by government of all ‘modern methods’ of RH commodities or devices will have to pass the bar of protection of the unborn from fertilization.
“Thus, even a secondary (not just primary) abortifacient action of preventing implantation would make a contraceptive unlawful. Wow!”
*      *      *
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: “The Decision contains a good number of pages defending freedom of living out one’s religious convictions, striking down as unconstitutional most parts of Section 23 which criminalizes certain acts that offend conscientious objectors.
“This is a triumph for religious freedom, a right that is losing its ground in many parts of the world.
“Our Faith WON! Referring to the Preamble of our Constitution IMPLORING Almighty God, the Court expressed its position thus:
“ ‘The Filipino people in ‘imploring the aid of Almighty God’ manifested their spirituality innate in our nature and consciousness as a people, shaped by tradition and historical experience. As this is embodied in the Preamble, it means that the State recognizes with respect the influence of religion in so far as it instills into the mind the purest principles of morality.’ (Decision, p. 64)
“Caesar knelt before God!”
“So who said ‘the Catholic Church lost’?”
*      *      *
TELLING BLOW: “Miracles indeed still do happen,” said lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal right after the promulgation of the SC decision as he also explained why the anti-RH Law group actually won.
He said: “It is not the constitutionality of the RH Law that was in issue. The substantive issues as defined by the SC in its guidelines were limited to whether or not certain provisions of the law violated the right to life and health; freedom of religion and speech; right to protection against hazardous products; rights of parents in caring for their children; and right of families to participate in family planning.”
In resolving these issues, Macalintal noted, the SC practically said “Yes, all these rights were violated.”
On the right to life and health protection against hazardous products, he said, the telling blow against the RH Law is the SC ruling that the word “abortifacient” does not include only contraceptives that “primarily induce abortion” — which means that all contraceptives that have abortion as “secondary effect” are illegal.

 http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2014/04/13/1311981/why-pro-lifers-won-rh-case-sc

*      *      *

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

RH loses sting with SC ruling – CBCP

MANLA, April 8, 2014 — Despite RH proponents’ outright claiming of victory, the much-contested RH law lost much of its sting with the Supreme Court declaring several key items in the said law unconstitutional, says the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.


RH watered down
“Although the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the RH law, it has truly watered down the RH law and consequently upheld the importance of adhering to an informed religious conscience even among government workers,” said CBCP president Archbishop Socrates Villegas.

In a landmark decision earlier today, April 8, the SC justices struck down as unconstitutional 8 items in the RH law found in sections 7, 17 and 23 of the said law.

Section 7 is a major provision in the law, pertaining to “Access to Family Planning”; section 17 is titled “Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women”; and section 7 “Prohibited Acts.”

Partial victory, still a win
After SC spokesman Theodore Te announced the ruling earlier today, anti-RH advocates said they were still grateful that the High Court rejected several provisions they found highly objectionable.

Castro added, “So what happened today was not a failure. It was not a lost cause after all.”

He particularly lauded the SC for declaring unconstitutional part of Section 7 which requires health facilities owned by religious groups to provide family planning methods.

“The independence of Catholic hospitals for them to invoke their conscientious objection was strengthened,” he said.

The SC also junked contraceptives that may cause or induce abortion and the prohibition against health care providers who refuse to perform RH services.

“If only that we are happy, but [it is] still [a] partial [victory] because the P13 billion budget and the basic idea of imposition of RH is there but I’m glad that the conscientious objection was upheld,” he said.
As early as 8:00 a.m., several church-based and prolife groups gathered for a prayer rally outside the compound where SC justices were having their session.

Respect the SC
Archbishop Socrates Villegas, CBCP president, said the High Court has also “stood on the side of the rights of parents to teach their children” on matters of sexual health.
In a statement issued in behalf of the CBCP, Villegas said the RH law was significantly “watered down” by the SC’s ruling today.

The CBCP encouraged the faithful to maintain respect for the SC and its decision based on existing laws in the Philippines.

“The Church can continue its mission even with such unjust laws,” said Villegas.

“Let us move on from being an RH-law-reactionary-group to a truly Spirit empowered disciples of the Gospel of life and love. We have a positive message to proclaim,” he added. (CBCPNews)

Friday, August 16, 2013

Estrogen-Progestogen Oral Contraceptives (Combined)-Known Carcinogen to Humans

I would just like to make some clarifications regarding the arguments presented by Sen Pia Cayetano during the SC Oral Arguments in their defense of the RH Law as featured by Christine Avendano (PDI 8/14/13) and by Rina Jimenez-David (PDI 8/16/13).

The news article said that "Associate Justice Roberto Abad also peppered Cayetano with questions on her position when it was the turn of the senator to present her case. Abad argued that hormonal contraceptives have the highest possibility of causing cancer and that they can cause "Class I" cancer. Cayetano countered that the Class I rank was actually the "lowest class" as it was similar to the risk of women getting sick from microwaves and television."  

It is obvious to us doctors and public health workers that Associate Justice Abad did his research well and is well read and informed. It is equally evident to us in the medical profession that Sen Cayetano did not do her homework well and is ill-advised regarding the mechanism of action and side effects of hormonal contraceptives.  

Substances and exposures that can lead to cancer are called carcinogens. One important way to identify carcinogens is through epidemiologic studies, which look at human populations to determine which factors might be linked to cancer. The lists of known and probable human carcinogens have been developed by two highly respected agencies – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US National Toxicology Program (NTP).  The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. The most widely used system for classifying carcinogens comes from the IARC. In the past 30 years, the IARC has evaluated the cancer-causing potential of more than 900 likely candidates, placing them into groups. When the evidence is conclusive that the substance or exposure is carcinogenic to humans, it is labelled as “Group or Class 1” and it is the “highest class” of carcinogens, with only a little over 100 substances and exposures being classified as such. On the other hand, IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from microwaves, TV, and wireless telephones as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group or Class 2B). Obviously, Sen. Cayetano got her data wrong on this matter. Other medical journals have shown evidence as to the carcinogenicity of hormonal contraceptives such as that of the meta analysis made by Dr. Kahlenborn and co-workers published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings in 2006 which came up with the conclusion that the use of oral contraceptives is associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer.   

As a doctor who works taking care of terminally-ill cancer patients, I would caution Sen Cayetano about down-playing the risk of cancers brought about by hormonal contraceptives.  Cancer kills. It would be lacking in prudence to expose oneself to known carcinogens when the risks are much more than the benefits (if any, such as in the case of hormonal contraceptives).

References:

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Right to Life & Beginning of Human Life: Scientific Myths & Facts

The point of contention during the oral arguments last July 9 was the beginning of human life.

1. The DVD film "Blood Money" answers that.  A more comprehensive discussion can be found in the bloodmoneyfilm website.

To Deny the Right to Life, We Must Know When Life Begins

During his majority opinion during the Roe v Wade trial of 1973, Justice Harry Blackmun said,
The judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to… resolve the difficult question of when life begins… since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.” (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. 1973)roe vs wade blackmun The Right to Life: What Makes Us Human?
In other words, since various religions, philosophers, and scientists were not been able to agree on when life begins, the court would not take a position on when life begins. 
To have made such a statement in 1973 was both historically and scientifically dishonest, and suggests that Blackmun was either woefully ignorant of advances in biology, or had other unscientific motivations for ruling as he did. [More...http://bloodmoneyfilm.com/blog/right-to-life]
2. When do Human Beings Begin: Scientific Myths and Scientific Facts  by Dianne Irving, MA, PhD. 
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36

O'Rahilly defines fertilization as:
"... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote.  The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle.  It is a unicellular embryo."9  (Emphasis added.)
The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species.  Quoting Moore:
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm.  A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).  The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10  (Emphasis added.)
This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11(not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development.  (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12  Finally, this new human being — the single-cell human zygote — is biologically anindividual, a living organism — an individual member of the human species.  Quoting Larsen:
"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development ofa new individual."13  (Emphasis added.)
In sum, a human sperm and a human oocyte are products of gametogenesis — each has only 23 chromosomes.  They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being.  They cannot singly develop further into human beings.  They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes.  They do not direct their own growth and development.  And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species.  They are only parts — each one a part of a human being.  On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization.  As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species.  This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't become another kind of thing.  It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period.  Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14

3. Submission to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee: Inquiry into Research involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002
Conclusion:

  • The consensus of human embryologists internationally is that human life begins at conception.
  • Ethical research is good research. Research that destroys a human embryo is not ethical.
  • Universally accepted principles governing experiments on human subjects are being questioned in the current debate on embryonic stem cell research.  These principles have been ignored in the past to the detriment of human society.

Yours sincerely
Sue Russell, 4/150 Wellington Street, Bondi Beach  NSW  2026

4. For therapeutic cloning purposes, the richest source of embryonic stem cells is tissue formed during the first five days after the egg has started to divide (after fertilization, before implantation). At this stage of development, called the blastocyst, the embryo consists of a cluster of about 100 cells that can become any cell type. Stem cells are harvested from cloned embryos at this stage of development, resulting in destruction of the embryo while it is still in the test tube.

Therapeutic cloning involves creating a cloned embryo for the sole purpose of producing embryonic stem cells with the same DNA as the donor cell. These stem cells can be used in experiments aimed at understanding disease and developing new treatments for disease. http://www.genome.gov/25020028

If stem cells at Day 5 post-fertilization are used for therapeutic cloning, we can deduce that these scientists think that human life is already present at this time.

5. For pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) purposes, one to two cells are removed from the embryo at the eight cell stage (3 days after fertilization) or at blastocyst stage (5 days after fertilization), for genetic testing.

PGD involves testing for certain genetic conditions in an embryo created using assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF), prior to transferring it to the uterus and allowing it to develop normally. After hormonal stimulation of the woman’s ovaries, some eggs are removed and then fertilised in the laboratory with sperm. One to two cells are removed from the embryo at the eight cell stage (after 3 days) or at blastocyst stage (after 5 days), for testing. Only those embryos that do not have the specific genetic condition that was tested for will be transplanted into the woman’s uterus. http://www.genetics.edu.au/FS18.pdf

Again, if one to two cells are removed from the embryo at the eight cell stage (3 days after fertilization) or at blastocyst stage (5 days after fertilization) are used for genetic testing, we can deduce that these doctors/scientists think that human life is already present at this time.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Pinoys positive amid serious illness, thanks to family culture

Filed under: Features,Life News
 
MANILA, Oct. 4, 2012―While the family-oriented nature of Filipinos is often associated with celebratory occasions, close family ties are the key factor that has buoyed up numerous Filipinos undergoing crises such as grave illness, resulting even in uniting the family, a medical doctor revealed.

“The illness will either draw the family closer together or bring it apart. In the Philippine setting, the usual thing is it brings the family together because we’re close-knit to begin with,” said Liza Manalo, M.D., who is a palliative care specialist and a faculty member at the Far Eastern University-Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation or FEU”s Department of Family and Community Medicine.




Magtutulungan tayo at magtutulungan — built-in you might say sa nature ng Pilipino as a nation na pag may nagkakagipitan, nandiyan tayo sa tabi ng pamilya natin (We will help each other again and again — it’s built-in in the nature of the Filipino as a nation that when help is needed, we’re there for our family),” she added. “Maybe we’re not a very nationalistic country but we’re a very family-oriented country. Our family is the most important thing in our life.”

Manalo explained how crucial the family is when a member is dealing with a serious illness such as cancer. Cancer treatment is tough, and when chemotherapy or radiotherapy is part of the chosen mode of treatment, it can require much resolve for the patient due to foreseen complications, the doctor said. Repeated trips to the hospital as well as financial costs incurred can be overwhelming that the absence of family can feel like a huge burden for the patient.

“And the fact that there’s someone to open up to confide in… ‘natatakot ako, nalulungkot ako,’ or to simply talk with, or may nagbibigay din ng ‘pep talk’… makes a big difference,” she pointed out.

“The saddest patients for me are those who don’t have families around them, at a time when their families are needed,” Manalo said, relating a scenario she had encountered several times with elderly cancer patients, in which she and fellow doctors do their hospital rounds and chance upon private-duty nurses accompanying the patients in the rooms, with no family member around.

“In matters like [cancer diagnosis and treatment], it’s important for the family to understand what’s going on with the sick relative and to be partners with the doctor as regards the treatment options to be carried out on the patient. It’s the saddest thing, [when family is seldom or never around]. The presence of family is very, very important, if not very crucial.”

Involving the children?
Though children are usually kept out of the picture when another member of the family is dealing with cancer or any other serious illness, it is advisable to involve them in some way depending on their age, maturity and capabilities, Manalo said.

First of all, since a cancer diagnosis has a profound effect on the entire family, the children need to be told about what is going on — something which family members themselves may feel ill-equipped to do. A common view among Filipino families also is that the little ones are better kept out of the loop to spare them from emotional pain.

When Manalo asks a family’s older members if they plan to let the children in on the matter, the common reply she receives is in the negative “dahil baka makasama sa bata (because it might be bad for the child).” Upon further prodding, the doctor learns the usual concern — which is the possibility that the children might be saddened by the news.

“‘Sa tingin niyo ba, hindi sila mas malulungkot kung bigla na lang mamatay ang daddy nila, o mommy nila?’ I gently ask them, then they tend to think about it more, that it will be even more tough if the child [suddenly loses the parent] without any explanation beforehand,” Manalo lamented. “Logical nga na dapat ipaliwanag habang maaga pa… siyempre sa level na maiintindihan.”

The doctor added it’s easy to assume that the children are unaware that something is up but that they hear the talking going on, whether the grownups like it or not. When they play around the room even when the adults are whispering, they can understand, she pointed out.

The palliative care specialist said that she and her co-doctors offer to explain the matter to the children if the adults in the family prefer it that way.

Manalo noted that amid difficulties for families in the course of cancer treatments, the close ties were undeniable.

“Lahat gusto nga, ang pamilya kasama sa usapan eh (Everyone wants the entire family to be included in the discussions),” she said.  (CBCP for Life)

http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=4945

Real concern for women makes RH opposition a no-brainer for doctor

Filed under: Headlines,Life News
 
MANILA, Oct. 8, 2012—Since preserving the health of patients and administering no harmful methods of treatment are part of the Hippocratic oath, a medical doctor openly expressed her opposition to any legislative measure that goes against this, particularly the reproductive health (RH) bill.

“There are many provisions in the RH bill that I will personally contest but from the medical point of view,  sigurado ang talagang labag sa kalooban ko ay to give something that will harm my patients,” said Liza C. Manalo, M.D., faculty and consultant of the Department of Community and Family Medicine,FEU-NRMF Medical Center, Fairview, Quezon City.

First, do no harm
Manalo pointed out that the number one bioethical principle for doctors and other health professionals is “Do good, avoid harm.”

Dr. Liza C. Manalo

“First, do no harm. Posibleng hindi mo mapagaling ang pasyente mo dahil sa sakit niya – cancer, for example. Gusto ko mang gumaling ang lahat ng pasyente ko from cancer…  talagang tatanggapin natin na may mga sakit na malala na [at] hindi na kayang pagalingin ng mga duktor,” Manalo explained.

Pero hindi ko man ikaw kayang pagalingin, ayoko namang ako ang maging dahilan kung bakit ka nagkasakit, and worse, ako ang dahilan kung bakit ka namatay. And in fact, when you require doctors to prescribe artificial contraceptives, that’s practically what you’re asking the doctors to do. To give a drug that I know for a fact can harm the health of my patients,” the Palliative Care specialist pointed out.

Manalo, who has spent years dealing with and treating women in poor communities in and outside Metro Manila, said that even unschooled folks have a clue as to the physical harm that taking hormonal contraceptives brings.

Birth control pills = steroids
Artificial contraceptives belong to the group of medicines called “steroids,” Manalo said, and when she informs her patients about this, many of them recognize the danger right away.

“Actually, sometimes simple folks understand immediately, and say, ‘Steroids, dok? Bibigyan mo ako? Di ba delikado yon?’ They know already that steroids are not given just like that… unnecessarily and unless the need to cure a medical condition outweighs the side effects,” she said.

Steroids are derived from a substance called “cholesterol,” the cancer specialist continued, adding that this often elicits a significant reaction even from ordinary people: “’Ha? Cholesterol? Di ba nakabalot sa puso yon?’ So somehow they understand it, and knowing if that’s the kind of substance in pills, you will understand why the side effects are like that.  Kasi nga steroidal siya, derived from cholesterol ang chemical structure niya. The effects are primarily on the cardiovascular system.”

Healthy women suddenly experiencing serious conditions
Manalo enumerated blood clot, heart attack, thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism as among the consequences that have commonly been seen in women for years as early as the 1960s.

“Thromboembolism, that’s the most common result in the 1960s when the pill was starting in distribution. Right away that’s the number one side effect of contraceptive pills that they were able to document,” she said.

“In fact, cancer came later; it’s thrombo-embolism that was causing the death of women – young people, previously well, walang sakit, bigla na lang dadating sa emergency room, ang taas-taas ng blood pressure, tapos ang diagnosis either heart attack or stroke,” the physician lamented.

House Bill 4244 and Senate Bill 2865 – often touted as a pro-women measure – proposes the pouring of billions of pesos in taxpayers’ money into the procurement and distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices, along with other supplies, procedures and programs considered part of “reproductive health care.”

Last year, the bill’s co-author Sen. Pia Cayetano revealed that the Department of Health (DOH) is asking for P13.7 billion for the bill’s implementation in 2012 alone, and continued to endorse the measure despite scientific studies and a warning from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) about Class 1 carcinogenicity of oral contraceptives.

“So as a doctor I will not do any harm consciously with full knowledge and full consent,” Manalo reiterated. “And I know that these artificial contraceptives are harmful, period. No ifs or buts. All they have to do is to check the literature.” (CBCP for Life)

http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=5183

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Reliable Science on the Contraceptive Pill


Reliable science on the pill

There are many conflicting researches being bandied around on the contraceptive pill, the center of the RH debate. In the midst of this, it should be clear that in any given question (is the pill unsafe or safe, abortifacient or not), only one side is true and the other false, since it is impossible for exact contradictories to be both true. 

Due to the great emotions this topic engenders and the presence of ideologies, both secular and religious, it is all the more necessary to adopt a calm and objective attitude. For this, we have to clarify the relevant criteria to arrive at scientific truth and certainty, and if this is not possible, to arrive at the most reliable science on the contraceptive pill. 

We believe that given the enormity of the questions, research should offer (1) the latest findings, because a 1999 study can very well be overturned by a 2000 study, (2) the most comprehensive study, with special emphasis on “meta-analysis” or a systematic and extensive review of current literature, and (3) the most authoritative and prestigious peer-reviewed journals and scientific experts, and (4) the most unbiased studies that are above the partisan ideological influence of pro-RH and anti-RH lobbyists.  

Thus for a serious national debate on scientific issues, we should not use sources such as blogs, pro-life magazines, pro-abortion websites, and we should use with discernment research that is directly produced by political, commercial, religious advocates. The only exception is when the conclusion of these groups run counter to their advocacies. 

We humbly offer what we believe are the latest, most comprehensive, most authoritative and prestigious, and most unbiased studies that we know. In this on-going debate, we would gladly be told of new, additional data that outdo the reliability of these studies. 

Cancer, stroke and heart attacks
A monograph released just last year (2011) by a working group under the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) made an overall evaluation that “oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans.” The 2011 report classified the pill as a  Group 1 carcinogen, which means the highest level of evidence of cancer risk. It specified the types of cancer the pill causes: “Oral combined estrogen–progestogen contraceptives cause cancer of the breast, in-situ and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the liver.”

This is the third time the Lyon, France-based IARC evaluated the carcinogenicity of pills. The earlier monographs were published in 1989 and 2007.  Summarizing its review, the 2011 IARC monograph said: “There are increased risks for cancer of the breast in young women among current and recent users only. This effect was noted particularly among women under 35 years of age at diagnosis who had begun using contraceptives when young  (< 20 years), whereas the increased risk declined sharply with older age at diagnosis..” (WHO-IARC findings on Combined Estrogen-Progesterone Pills, retrieved from: monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100A/mono100A-19.pdf)

On breast cancer, the Mayo Clinic, consistently considered as one of the best hospitals in the world, published in 2006, an article  entitled “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Pre-menopausal Breast Cancer:  A Meta-analysis.”  The meta-analysis, a study of world scientific literature on this issue, concluded that use of the pill is linked with statistically significant association with pre-menopausal breast cancer.  The association was 44% over baseline in women who have been pregnant and took the pill before their first pregnancy. (See sidebar for more data)

In 2010, the Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention published a study which concluded that the current use of the pill carries “an excess risk of breast cancer". It also stated that "Previous studies convincingly showed an increase in risk of breast cancer associated with current or recent use of oral contraceptives from the 1960s to 1980s."

On cervical cancer, a systematic review of literature of 2003 published at the Lancet, one of the leading medical journals in the world, stated: “long duration use of hormonal contraceptives is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer”.

On heart attacks, a 2005 meta-analysis at The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism stated that “a rigorous meta-analysis of the literature suggests that current use of low-dose OCs significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events”. 

On stroke, one of the lead scientific journals of the American Heart Association, precisely titled Stroke, published a study in 2002 that concluded that indeed the pill confers “the risk of first ischemic stroke”.

Replies and counter-replies
To these findings a number of possible replies can be given.
First, all medications have side-effects, even paracetamol.  Our reply would be: Paracetamol is not usually taken everyday,  but  pill is. Also, the risk of the side effect should be proportionate to the reason for taking a medicine. In the case of contraceptives, there is no disease, since a child is not a disease. Moreover, the three side-effects which have strong empirical proof are not superficial side-effects but some of the most common causes of death among Filipinos. 

A second possible reply: according to some studies, there is only a slight risk. Reply:  We have to take note of the actual words of the most reliable studies: “excess risk of breast cancer” and “significantly increases risk” of heart attacks. And if, for the sake of argument, the risk were slight, cancer –the big C-- is no light matter.

Thirdly, someone might say: government authorities prescribe them.  Our reply: not all government orders are correct. They can also make mistakes, especially now when foreign governments and wealthy and powerful commercial lobbies are actively pushing for the RH Bill.

A fourth reply would be that the pregnancy is a greater risk than cancer.  On the contrary, the datum from the science shows pregnancy has a protective effect against breast cancer.  The journal Breast Care: A Multidisciplinary Journal for Research, Diagnosis and Therapy published a study in 2009 that showed that “A meta-analysis of large Scandinavian epidemiological studies found that [women who have never given birth] have a 30% increased risk compared with women who have had at least 1 full-term pregnancy. Additionally, an increasing protective effect was found with increasing number of full-term pregnancies. For each birth, the risk was reduced by about 7%.”

Abortifacient effects
 Some people might still decide to take the pill or to prescribe it in the name of “helping the woman avoid an onerous pregnancy”. However, another aspect has to be taken into account.  A third party outside of the doctor and of the woman: the possible presence of a child.

The question of whether the pill is abortifacient or not is of inestimable significance, because the value of a human being cannot be measured.

But the first question is: When does a woman have a child, another human, in her womb? Based on the most authoritative and unbiased sources, the most reliable answer is: fertilization, when the human male sperm unites with the human female egg. This conclusion was the “overwhelming agreement in countless scientific writings”, and of most authoritative experts, including scientists from Harvard Medical School and the Mayo Clinic that were gathered together in the US Senate in 1983. It is a position upheld in 2011by the  Philippine Medical Association in their pro-RH but anti-contraceptive statement, which they said, is “founded strongly on the principle that ‘life or conception begins at fertilization”. (bold letters in the original)

Second question: Does the pill abort the human being at his or her embryonic stage? The answer is yes.

Science has shown that the pill works to stop pregnancy by at least three ways: 1) to prevent the discharge of female egg cells, a process called ovulation (no egg, no fertilization, no human being) , 2) to change the cervical mucus which increases the difficulty of sperm entry  into the uterus (no meeting of sperm and egg, no fertilization, no human being),  and 3) cause changes in the lining of the uterus that makes it hostile for the fertilized egg (the human at the embryonic stage) to rest on the mother’s womb and obtain nutrition (no food, death to a previously alive human being).

The third action, which was not widely known until recently, has been shown in many studies. The most famous of which is the study of Dr. Walter Larimore that was published in one of the scientific journals of the American Medical Association in the year 2000. Dr. Larimore narrates: “I have prescribed ‘the Pill’ since 1978. My wife and I used the Pill for years, having no moral concerns about it. Then, in 1995 my friend … showed me a patient information brochure … that claimed the Pill had a postfertilization effect causing ". . . the unrecognized loss of preborn children." …  its claims seemed to be outlandish, excessive, and inaccurate. So, I decided to begin a literature search to disprove these claims to my partner, myself, and any patients who might ask about it.” In the end, Dr. Larimore found 94 studies that showed that the pill does indeed have a postfertilization effect. From then on, he stopped prescribing the pill.

Writing to the Inquirer in July 2011, Dr. Larimore and his co-author, Dr. Joseph Stanford, stressed that “this fact is now so well-established in medical literature that the United States Food and Drug Administration says of the pill: ‘Although the primary mechanism of action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include… changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.’” He also referred to the pro-RH American Society for Reproductive Medicine that admitted in 2008 that the pill modifies “the endometrium, thus preventing implantation.”

How do we explain the third action? While it is true that contraceptive pills are supposed to prevent ovulation in the first place, hence the fertilization is rendered unlikely, it can never be overemphasized that no drug is 100% effective. It is a scientific fact that even if a woman is on the pill, ovulation is not always suppressed, and this is referred to as “breakthrough ovulation”. This can occur in around 20% of cycles of women on the pill, and in case this happens, the woman can still get pregnant if she is sexually active on the day of breakthrough ovulation. This datum is mentioned  in a 2003 study published in Fertility and Sterility, the official science journal of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine.

Thus, as Dr. Walter Larimore and Dr. Stanford said: “given that there are highly effective, inexpensive, totally natural, and non-abortifacient methods of birth control (the methods of modern natural family planning), it appears that most arguments for using birth -control pills can be said to be advocating convenience for mothers and fathers at the potential expense of innocent and invaluable human life.”