hmm, that is strange. Considering PNoy's heavy public endorsement of 'choice' and 'responsible parenthood', how come he did not direct Sec Ona to align DOH funds according to his policy? Does it mean PNoy did not put the money where his mouth is? Or is it a simple case of scarce funds? The report does not add up.

please cite your reference, and assuming so, is that objectionable by itself? How?

Most of government services have already been devolved to the LGU's with the passage of the Local Government Code in 1991. That is why the DOH directly ships the medicines to them for disposition. Recall that we already have a budget for contraceptives (admittedly small by pro-RH standards), yet the issue of ghost deliveries of contraceptives uncovered by Senate investigation has not been resolved to date. What gives us the assurance that the RH bill allotments for contraceptives won't end up as apparitions either? Better to put the resources to real and tangible health services where it matters. Pay medical personnel to be actually posted in the poor, rural areas where they can attend to maternal care. This for example is a non-controversial measure which we endorse. The utility for pregnancy related health care for the region of ARMM for example is a dismal 20% compared to 97% for NCR. Why don't we concentrate on improving this? MMR has its regional attributes and I don't see anybody delving into it.

Ok Arm I got you. I never mistook you for anyone else as your professional, incisive style and comments are familiar to me.

Challenging the data is par for the course, sneers and gestures aside...we don't parade sensitivity to those as a matter of argument. Why...we been ridiculed for objecting to Medeo's explicit exhibit and we are astounded at the negative attention given to Sotto's sneer which can be interpreted many ways. But that is another story, anyway...

There was no downgrading of the importance of MMRs. The redundancy was only being pointed out. Come to think of it, again I take off from my previous comments, what prevents the DOH from addressing it effectively given the current system? I don't recall them having been denied the budget specifically on maternal health concerns, and neither can the RH bill (assuming it is passed into law) be guaranteed of a budget to do precisely the same, same things that DOH is mandated to do with the added impetus of the magna carta law for women behind it? Trying to rationalize it makes my head explode :-)

It does not say MMRs should be ignored. MMRs are best addressed with the proper prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care. That's what DOH should do, (it is its mandate, right?) and its ever increasing budget is justified on the very premise. When Sotto says "this", I understand it to mean he is referring to the RH bill. Can we not address MMRs without the RH bill? That is what I can glean from Sotto's argument. We already allotted billions to DOH budget precisely to adress MMRs and child care, at least we should make them accountable. Have anyone took the DOH to task? Audited them? Made a performance evaluation of the billions given them for the purpose? Why not...before we consider this bill which seeks to do precisely the same thing that we taxpayers are ALREADY paying DOH to do?

Wes,
Thank you for the explanation. Now my head is spinning :-)

Your analysis appears plausible, but then again I am just basing off on what you posted:

"Based on official government statistics, an estimated 6.5 to 11 maternal deaths occurred per day in 2010...Using a new statistical model, the World Health Organization (WHO) did come up with a lower estimate of maternal mortality for the country in 2008: 2,100 at the middle of the range, some 5.8 maternal deaths per day. Because of the inherent difficulties in recording maternal deaths, which the WHO report extensively discusses, varying methods which come up with varying but overlapping estimates is not unusual."

Would the ordinary citizen understand sisterhood method, statistical method, midpoints, etc., and so forth? The proponents just flaunted the "11 deaths" to the public at every opportunity and pounded on that soundbyte mercilessly. Please do not fault protagonists for the supposed "bad taste", for the MMR issue is capitalized upon as a MAJOR, major issue by the proponents themselves to justify the RH bill. I thought it is fine to question everything in the sacred interest of "freethinking" diba? It would be reasonable to say 6.5 or 5.8 or even 11, as long as the caveats are pointed out. Even in the Senate sponsorship speeches it was not done so, and a clarification is in normal order here. But no, we never, ever heard any and it is amazing that Sotto and the anti-advocates are pilloried for merely questioning the data, and uncalled-for personal insinuations are resorted to.

"It's noted in the source of the chart.."

And what period was the basis of that chart? 21st century? Would it look the same, say a hundred years ago? A thousand? Some things change, some things don't. Did secularism agree on all things since day one?

"we rely on reason and science to chart morality and uplift humanity"

All secularists agree nicely on their reasoning and interpretation of science? I imagine
you guys in serene kumbaya hand-holding all the time then. You folks think you have
a monopoly on reason and science? Wait. wasn't Stalin a secularist? How about Lenin? Mao?

"God, if he exists, never personally endorsed any religion"

Ows? cmon jong, this is a self-contradicting statement. Questioning the existence of
God at the same time asserting something on the basis of God's existence. Try another one.

So, how much do you think is appropriate? Remember 2.6 billion was already released for Family Planning purpose for the past 3 years even in the absence of the bill. If the RH bill sponsors were already contented with that amount, you think they would still push for the bill? But wait, the 2.6 billion seems to have evaporated into thin air http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20110513he...
Hmm, PNoy was quite right in saying "kung walang kurap...".
If you claim "carefully balancing needs", the government has already been doing that, not exactly with high marks. Look into the the 2011 GAA and you will find no less than 12 billion in the DOH budget for new appropriations, http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2011/04...
which according to Cong Mitos Magsaysay was crafted particularly in line with the maternal health concerns addressed in the Magna Carta for Women.

You say "inflated figures". I ask you how much do you think the pro-RH legislators want over and above the current 12.07 B in the GAA and the 2.6 B in FP supplies already being currently granted?

Cmon folks, let's face the funding issue squarely. When the RH bill says contraceptives will be classified as "essential medicines" (btw, what does it cure anyway?), the DOH will be forced to stock them in the national drug formulary. Contraceptives will be bought and stocked along with anti-tuberculosis drugs, hypertension drugs, diabetes, cardio, etcetera drugs that combat the top 10 mortality causes. That is the nice trick about the classification. Note that our really essential drugs are already woefully lacking. This will cost. It was Lagman himself who computed 3 Billion in the initial year of implementation, aren't we taking his word for it? Anyway, I thought the amount was peanuts, considering the bill has a LOT of objectives aside from giving out free contraceptives. I'll let you guys to do the math. I count roughly 4.7 million poor males in the 15-49 age bracket, while there are 5 million females in the same bracket. Those are the poor people only. Now how much does pills, condoms, injectibles, etc cost. and how much quantity each would be reasonable to cover the 'human right' to state-funded, no-worry sex of those 9.7 million males and females?

If the RH bill was all about maternal and child health and nothing besides, it wouldn't create such a controversy. Note that in my very first comment in
your previous earlier post, http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/06/16/crossi...
I agreed with the 4 provisions you listed, only that they have to be "seamlessly integrated with existing DOH systems addressing the same needs". We have no objection to legislation addressing maternal health and women empowerment. However, one has to question the wisdom (or lack of it) in introducing
new legislation that addresses concerns which are already addressed by existing laws, systems and structures. It is allocating precious
legislative resources to an outcome that has no value-add.

Thus if we concede the redundancy aspect (otherwise the legislators have to state what is the value-add of the RH bill on maternal health and women empowerment that is not already addressed by DOH and MCW), we are left with the essence of the RH bill and I believe you got it pinned down: abortifacients and government funding for contraceptives. The only innovation in the bill is that it will classify contraceptives as "essential medicines", thus it will be entitled to mandated and recurring budgets. Note that the sponsors have already stated that the provision of contraceptives is one (note just one) among the many approaches to addressing poverty.
It means all sides can agree there are many approaches. Which approach to prioritize will be a very contentious matter. Countryside development, livelihood programs, education, etc..everyone agrees to them. It is just that the RH bill sponsors insist that the provision of free contraceptives must be a key ingredient in solving poverty. It is a contentious issue with each side presenting contrasting studies. Just today, a report came out with the MMDA planning officer being quoted on the plight of slum dwellers.
“You must arrest the root cause, which is uncompetitive rural incomes." http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18918/slum-trap-for-...

With these in mind and our prior comments, I propose that there is only one significant thing that may turn the tide in favor of the RH bill. Is the entitlement to state-funded contraceptives an authentic human right? This question would be along your proposal on what is best to clarify.