Language
Country/Area
No result found
How will this bill affect the reproductive choices of poor families?
In 2012, the Philippines passed a law called the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act (the Reproductive Health Act or the RH Act). The bill aims to provide universal access to contraceptive methods, pregnancy control, sex education and maternal care. While there is consensus on the bill’s provisions on maternal and child health, its provisions providing government and private sector funding and promotion of family planning devices such as condoms, birth control pills and IUDs have sparked heated debate. The passage of the bill was accompanied by a clash of support and opposition from all walks of life, and even triggered large-scale demonstrations and debates across the country.
Supporters of the bill argue that free birth choice will enable poor families to choose a birth plan that suits their economic situation, thereby reducing the financial burden on families.
The background for the passage of the bill stems from the population problem in the Philippines. According to statistics, the fertility rate of poor families is significantly higher than that of wealthy families. As of 2013, the average fertility rate for women in the poorest fifth of households was 5.9, while for the richest fifth it was just 2.0. These data show that poor families often face greater pressure on fertility and education.
Supporters say smaller families would be able to invest better in their children's education and health, alleviating poverty. On the surface, unplanned family planning among poor families will directly lead to the deterioration of the family’s finances, thus forming a vicious cycle. In fact, about 44% of poor women do not want to get pregnant, but are unable to use effective contraception due to lack of contraceptive information or resources.
Trying to make flexible family plans is not only a healthy choice for childbearing, but also a key measure to break the cycle of poverty.
However, opposition voices also followed. Critics argue that independent choice of contraception is sufficient in itself and does not require government funding. They argue that tax dollars should not be used to support individual choices of contraception, but should be focused on the root causes of poverty. This view has triggered a deeper discussion on poverty and fertility, and whether the association between poverty and fertility should be read as a pair.
Many experts point out that large families are usually financially strapped, and fertility choices affect not only the family's financial situation but also the future of each child. When families face limited resources, providing adequate education and nutrition for each child is particularly important. For poor families, these resources are already limited, and having too many children will further deepen the family's vulnerability.
The Reproductive Health Law was proposed in the hope of providing more choices for families, especially poor families, so that they can control their own reproductive rights.
Many surveys show that there is considerable support for the bill. For example, a 2008 poll showed that 71% of people supported the bill. This shows that society is concerned about the reproductive choices of poor families and expects government intervention. Nevertheless, implementation of the law still faces challenges, especially in some places where traditional ideas still influence people's views on contraception.
In short, the legislative significance of the Reproductive Health Act is to provide approval, information and resources so that poor families can make more responsible reproductive choices without being constrained by economic conditions. However, while promoting these policies, should we also reflect on what are the fundamental factors that really affect the fertility choices of poor families?
