Family Planning in Asia and the Pacific - International Council on ...

track <strong>the</strong> distribution, storage <strong>and</strong> utilization of supplies.The new order conta<strong>in</strong>s explicit language that <strong>the</strong> nationalgovernment will directly f<strong>in</strong>ance or ensure <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g ofFP <strong>and</strong> RH commodities, not as an option of last resort,but as part of its regular role to build safety nets for <strong>the</strong>poor.Abortion overtak<strong>in</strong>gcontraception <strong>in</strong> regulat<strong>in</strong>gfertilityIn a 2008 study, Cabigon adopted Bongaarts’ proximatedeterm<strong>in</strong>ants to decompose <strong>the</strong> contribution of marriage,contraception, <strong>in</strong>duced abortion <strong>and</strong> post-partum<strong>in</strong>fecundability*12 to <strong>the</strong> slow fertility change, us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>1993, 1998 <strong>and</strong> 2003 NDHSs. The analysis was done at<strong>the</strong> national <strong>and</strong> regional levels, with <strong>the</strong> national updat<strong>in</strong>gof earlier work, us<strong>in</strong>g all surveys carried out before 1993.The study clearly demonstrated that, overall, contraceptionhas been <strong>the</strong> primary factor expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> decelerat<strong>in</strong>gdecl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> fertility from <strong>the</strong> 1960s to early 1990s but hasbeen outranked by <strong>in</strong>duced abortion s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> late 1990s.The m<strong>in</strong>or fertility-<strong>in</strong>hibit<strong>in</strong>g effect of marriage <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>counteract<strong>in</strong>g effect of breastfeed<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> 1960s toearly 1990s were reversed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> most recent period.Broader issues that haveimpacts on family plann<strong>in</strong>gLegal issues on abortion,contraception <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1987ConstitutionOne of <strong>the</strong> major legal issues hold<strong>in</strong>g up <strong>the</strong> passageof a reproductive health law is a provision <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1987Constitution: “[<strong>the</strong> State] shall equally protect <strong>the</strong> life of<strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> life of <strong>the</strong> unborn from conception”.This is commonly <strong>in</strong>terpreted as merely a safeguardaga<strong>in</strong>st any future attempt to change <strong>the</strong> strict clauses <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> penal code which crim<strong>in</strong>alize abortion without anyexplicit exception. 50 However, Catholic representatives <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Constitutional Commission <strong>in</strong>terpret <strong>the</strong> phrase asencompass<strong>in</strong>g even contraceptives that <strong>the</strong>y suspect actaga<strong>in</strong>st a fertilized ovum – <strong>the</strong> “unborn from conception”. Fr.Joaqu<strong>in</strong> Bernas, a Catholic priest, <strong>in</strong>fluential constitutionallaw expert <strong>and</strong> member of <strong>the</strong> Commission, argued thisposition clearly: 51Our constitutional provision wasdiscussed <strong>and</strong> crafted at a time whenmany were aware of <strong>the</strong> United StatesSupreme Court decision <strong>in</strong> Roe v. Wadewhich allowed abortion up to <strong>the</strong> sixthmonth of pregnancy. This is contrary toboth our Penal Code <strong>and</strong> Canon Law.The prevention of <strong>the</strong> adoption of <strong>the</strong>doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> Roe v. Wade was certa<strong>in</strong>lyone of <strong>the</strong> purposes of <strong>the</strong> provision. ButCommission deliberations <strong>in</strong>dicate that<strong>the</strong> provision goes beyond Roe v. Wade.The unborn’s entitlement to protectionbeg<strong>in</strong>s “from conception,” that is, from <strong>the</strong>moment of conception. The moment ofconception is popularly understood as <strong>the</strong>moment of fertilization which takes placeoutside <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s womb. The <strong>in</strong>tentionof <strong>the</strong> Constitution is to protect life fromits beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> assumption is that<strong>the</strong> gradual development of human lifebeg<strong>in</strong>s at conception <strong>and</strong> that conceptiontakes place at fertilization (even if medicalliterature seems to see conception as <strong>the</strong>moment of implantation). …The practical implication of this isthat <strong>the</strong>re may be a need to analyzescientifically what k<strong>in</strong>d of contraceptivemeans are now be<strong>in</strong>g dispensed todeterm<strong>in</strong>e whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y are merelycontraceptive or already have <strong>the</strong> effect ofprevent<strong>in</strong>g implantation <strong>and</strong> consequentloss of a fertilized zygote.While Fr. Bernas concedes that scientific analysis ofcontraceptives is needed before declar<strong>in</strong>g which onesmay be prohibited by his <strong>in</strong>terpretation of <strong>the</strong> 1987constitution, Catholic bishops have already made up <strong>the</strong>irm<strong>in</strong>ds on which ones are “abortifacients”. Bishop TeodoroBacani, a Constitutional Commission member <strong>and</strong> oneof <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> authors of “<strong>the</strong> unborn” clause, def<strong>in</strong>es <strong>and</strong>identifies “abortifacients” as follows: 52316