I Introduction
Repeating tragic history is the greater tragedy
Historians, anthropologists and ordinary suffering people, cannot understand why humans repeat tragic experiences without learning from them. Is it ignorance, stupidity, pride or even God's will. People seem incapable of stopping the repetition of disaster, even when they so plainly see it coming. This Bill 4244 appears to be a prime example.
Having made useful progress in understanding repetitions suffering in families (1-3) and considerable research on child mistreatment (4-8) and on the on the effects of abortion (9-12) and having treated or evaluated thousands of women and families, (13-12) I am in a favorable position to perceive what is about to happen in a nation composed of good families. Philippinos are known world wide for their love and devotion to their families. I see this Bill as significant destruction to families and their country. How can I shout loudly enough, "stop!". This is the wrong way to health and prosperity for it will destroy the essence of family. Please read on and I will explain.
There needs to be a better way because the present system isn't working There is a better way but it requires discarding old assumptions and thinking afresh.

II Basic Assumptions.
Every thought and activity of humanity is determined by the individual's basic philosophy or assumptive framework. This is also true for governments. If the assumptions are correct, thinking and productive effort flow much more easily. The basic assumptions for Bill 4244 are clearly stated, more often implied but still clear. Yet are they correct?

A. The assumption that this Bill will work is faulty.
Those who drafted and those who support Bill 4244 assume it will improve the health and the status of Philippinos, women in particular, but it won't work. This approach has been tried by many countries. It has not only failed to produce any measurable benefit, it has resulted in much greater distress.
The essence of this Bill is not new. The wording makes it fairly certain, this bill is not only old but it is foreign. It sounds like something from the mid 1960ies. It also sounds like it was basically drafted by feminists of the USA. or the UN.
It has been tried and failed in many western countries. Wherever it has been tried there have been more reproductive medical problems, social disorder, economic decline and family failures. Sadly those who seek to impose these ideas, will not admit their failures because they seem to want to destroy the foundation of society even further.
Liberating women, was tried by the USSR, mostly because they wanted more laborers in order to increase the GNP. The net result is deep social unrest, failing families, worse female health and a rapidly declining population that is threatening the countries productivity. As early as the 1960ies, the Russian government was attempting to reinstate a male/female wage differential that would force women back in their homes, caring from their families.
The Chinese were persuaded to institute the one child per family and though it appeared to work, it has become a social and economic nightmare. Attempts in Shanghai to persuade young couples to have 2 children, was met with considerable resistance. "One child is enough. We become tired trying to raise him and we don't have enough money. We certainly don't want 2".

B. The basic philosophic belief that wealth and population are inversely related is false.
The assumption that a nation's prosperity requires limiting its population is wrong. In fact the best evidence shows that a nation that has a growing population has greater prosperity. This is especially true in this era when every country has exponentially declining fertility.
This Bill fails to state that it's people are it's greatest asset but they are for reasons to be mentioned in this proposal; A Much Better Plan (AMBP). Former US president Bill Clinton on a recent visit to the Philippines, stated that the Philippine's greatest resource were its people. This statement is remarkable because Clinton is not one who generally champions population growth. China is beginning to realize its great wealth depended directly upon it's huge population. Now it is beginning to relax it' one child policy. Sadly this change in attitude may be too late.
Russia and Europe are desperate to increase their population. The USA has increased their population with slightly higher birth rates mostly from immigrants. It is interesting that although the US is foisting plans to limit population growth on other countries, there is no plan to limit fertility there. In fact millions are spent on IVF for people who ostensibly want children but due to the effects of infection mostly from abortions, can't conceive. Is it possible the US wants to take advantage of other nations who are kept in relative poverty by reducing their population.

C. It appears that those who drafted this Bill believe that sustainable development requires fewer people but they are fundamentally wrong.
It is wrong mostly because it is assumed that the resources of this world are limited and will soon be exhausted. At the present, no one needs to go without clean water and good food and space to go hiking alone.
The problem is not limited resources but limited concern for others so that these resources are not evenly spread around the world. Even if in time the population "burgeons" in an exponential increase, there are limitless resources in our limitless universe. We have most of the technology to start colonization of our moon and Mars. There are sufficient funds if only nations would not spend their time and resources on warring with each other. All it now takes more courage and an outward looking mentality.
No country can run a free market economy with a declining population. Every asset and eventually every commodity lose value. When people's homes lose value on the market, people panic. They cannot count on the sale at inflated prices of their greatest asset (their home) to provide for their retirement. Their increasing anxiety about the future reflects the rapid loss in value. They lean on their children to sustain them. The children feel resentment and demand the government provide more "homes for the elderly". Because of health budget cuts, these homes must reduce the staff and quality of care.
Because the elderly are mistreated and ignored by their family, they begin to desire doctor assisted suicide (DAS). The government becomes increasingly complicit with euthanasia, which makes people distrust government promises and care givers. This distrust complicates medical treatment, making it more difficult for physicians who will bill for more investigations. Waiting lists for acute care grow so the electorate demands "action". The elected representatives make big promises, which, even with large increases in taxes, are unaffordable. The economy begins to collapse with a limited recession but then the decline accelerates What has happened in Iceland, Greece etc should be a serious lesson for the Philippines.

D. This bill reiterates it's basic belief that "Two" is the ideal number of children but this assumption is without scientific support and it is wrong.
The flat curve of population requires each couple to have and nurture 2.1 children. If every couple had only 2 children, the population would decline, slowly at first, then with an exponential decrease.
Countries that have officially and unofficially limited their population, now find they cannot stop this trend. Many countries are now using monetary incentives for more children. Beginning with Eastern Germany, all kinds of inducements have not worked because nations under-rate the importance of changes in the mind-set of people who become increasingly selfish and materialistic. For many, having a good life means not having children.

E. It is assumed that men are the cause of poor reproductive health but this is wrong.
Men are ignored and left out of any meaningful contribution to a solution for the current reproductive the problem in this Bill. This can only mean those who drafted it, falsely believe men are the source of most of the problem and can have no say it's solution.
Throughout Bill 4244 women are given rights, privileges and assistance. It is assumed that men are the source of women's problems and can conveniently be curtailed and ignored. This assumption is wrong and carries with it many deleterious side effects.
No one can elevate or empower one half of humanity without similar provisions for the other half. The similar attempts in other countries have resulted in men abdicating their traditional sustaining, leading and protecting roles. Coercive efforts to ensure men fulfill their responsibilities after disempowering them, have backfired.
Why does this Bill repeatedly refer to rights of couples, children and women with no mention of rights men need for their empowerment and reproductive health. Surely it is because the feminist view of the world is assumed in this document.
The net effects as shown in other countries are:
Men abandon their roles and families, there is more domestic violence, there is more divorce and family break up, there is greater need for social assistance and foster homes, drug and alcohol abuse increase, children drop out of school earlier, more sexual activity and sexual infections etc, etc.
There is no reason why men should not have all the rights and privileges that women should have and are named in this Bill.
It is unjust and unworkable to not give rights with responsibilities.
Moreover men will resent the government that fractures their roles as head of the family.

F. The drafters of this powerful Bill apparently assume that this bill doesn't need checks and balances. This assumption is wrong and very dangerous.
The wording of Bill 4244 shows the intent to make this bill dominant. It overrides many other's that are repealed( Sec. 33.) with no indication of which bills are effected in which way. The inconsistent bills, rules and regulations that need to be repealed will include bills on the importance of other health care, rules that govern the operation of courts in interpreting custody issues, educational priorities, etc.
It behooves the drafters of this Bill to indicate which other legislation will be affected. Otherwise it can only be understood that intention of this Bill is take over many functions of family and government that will greatly alter life for most Philippinos.
The provision of Implementing and Regulating (section 31) give the Secretary of DOH enormous power to "formulate and amend". There appears to be no limit and there is no indication of necessary legislative input or advice or restraint.
It is noted that two NGOs for women will be involved with no mentions of men as if men have no legitimate say in what regulates their reproductive health or that their reproductive health is on no importance. In other countries, the common experience is that men are losing their masculinity, desire for mating and fertility. There is no indication of how these NGOs will be chosen but it is easy to assume they will have views that coincide with this Bill.

G. It is assumed that a budget for this expensive bill is not required but that belief is wrong and potentially politically disastrous.
It is erroneously assumed that it is not necessary to have a budget built into Bill 4244 or let the Philippines know how much these major changes will cost them. This assumption is very wrong.
If representatives of the people of the Philippines are to vote conscientiously they must know what monies are required to make it operational. The electorate of senators and representatives must know what are the financial implications. If there are limited funds for health care and I am sure there are, how much will the health care budget increase or what is more likely, what other programs will be cut.
If cost is of no object to the Philippines, then they must have some secret source of funding. It must be clear what this source is and what foreign influences the government is accepting that go together with these funds. The people need to know what will happen when these out of country funds dry up.

H. Those who drafted Bill 4244 must believe a Cost/ Benefit Analysis isn't necessary but they are wrong.
A Cost-Benefit analysis is necessary. When the government embarks on such a radical change, it vital that they monitor changes and predetermine which changes will be good for people and the nation.
They must monitor direct and indirect costs. The experience of other countries show the direct cost is almost always underestimated and the indirect costs quickly escalate.
In additions to a hoped for reduction in maternal mortality, they must measure: divorce rates, family break-up, juvenile delinquency, perinatal mortality and injury, breast feeding rates, prematurity, alcoholism, domestic violence, crime, drug addiction etc.
At some point the government must have the courage to say, this is not working and then cancel it. Otherwise it is not only an uncontrolled social experiment foisted on unsuspecting people, it is an indication that those who promoted it have no authentic interest in people. Theirs is an ideological insistence it must work and they do not care if people die as a result. This is the motto of Hitler, Stalin and others like them.

I. It appears that Bill 4244 is based on the assumption that there is a phenomena called reproductive health and that it is unrelated to any other health or welfare matters but that belief is illogical and wrong.
Modern medical science is working to reintegrate areas of health. There is no area such as reproductive health separate from all of health. The assumptions of Bill 4244, are out of date and wrong. It will mean a great redundancy of services and overlapping responsibilities that will confuse and frustrate all those attempting to provide this service to women.

reviewed to this point.

III Errors and Omissions

A. Sexist

Throughout Bill 4244, it is written "rights and welfare of couples, children, women and adolescents" obviously leaving out men. The unstated intent appears to provide some legal foundation for a future judgment, as in many other countries, that men have no legal right or say in what choices are made regarding an preborn child. The drafters are crafty about this, knowing full well the country would not approve if put to vote.
In many other countries where it has been decided that men have no legal right to help decide what happens to a preborn child, there has been legal chaos and destructive tensions between men and women. Some men revert to murdering their partners (10) or the abortionists, they are so angry. Suddenly any right men had to fulfill their primary biological and psychological intent which is to have progeny, to help procreate someone carry their genes, to raise a son to perpetuate the family business and carry the family name, has been destroyed. Their only recourse is to beg their female partner to "please, don't abort this one". That makes them so subservient to women, they would rather leave, become gay, join the army etc.
The inevitable confusion created by the wording of Bill 4244, is easily apparent from: i) There is no clarification of what about male adolescents. Are they to have rights like women or like men? ii) It doesn't compute to have "Gender equality and women empowerment" If women are to be powered up, it can only mean that men are powered down.
This Bill, insists men are given responsible to help maintain the health and welfare of women, but there is no mention of women being responsible to help maintain the health and welfare of men. Yet there are many ways women can either help or harm men's reproductive health. They can easily undermine men's sexual health by giving them a STI, psychologically castrating them, denying them any choice in decisions regarding the preborn child etc.
Elevating women's rights by suppressing men, cannot work. Men give up, become passive, don't want a committed relationship, assert them selves by pressuring women to have an abortion when she wants a child ("You did this to me so now I will do it to you", failing to emotionally and financially support women and families etc.
This Bill should read "by all persons equally" if male-female equality is the authentic intent. Since the drafters have so often made this bill in favor of women, any statements about gender equality can only be seen as deliberately dishonest.
There is a better way that avoids all these difficulties and disasters. See AMBP

B. Bad medicine

Repeatedly this Bill makes provision for various components of health care and insists that women have a right to these. All of that is unnecessary. What women and men have is a right to good medicine.
Good modern medicine is not hard to define. It consists of reasonably remunerated, well trained health care providers who are committed to only treat with procedures; medication and advice that is evidenced based medicine. All counties who are sincerely interested in advancing the health of that country's people practice this. Good medicine insists that before any treatment is given there must be:
i) A valid reason, a medical indication to treat or prevent a recognizable disease their patient is suffering from. (Pregnancy is not a disease)
ii) The treatment has well established evidence of benefit to the patient and their families in their immediate and long term future. What is truly good for the patient is almost always good for their families.
iii) There are no or few damaging side effects or the side effects are outweighed by the potential benefit.
iv) All other less invasive and more reversible treatments have first been offered and tried.
v) The health care provider must perform his/her medical duties in good faith. If this is an abortionists, it means he/she must be knowledgeable in the required science, have carefully followed up and systematically evaluated all those people he/she has aborted and is convinced in his own heart and mind that he is providing treatment that is only in the patient's best long term interests.
vi) If in any reasonable doubt regarding his proposed treatment, the health care provider must consult with someone who is better qualified and/or suggest the patient get a 2nd opinion.
vii) The health care provider must give to the patient and family, a clear recommendation regarding treatment with adequate opportunity, free from pressure or coercion, to ask questions and carefully consider whether or not to accept the physician's recommendation.
viii) The health care provider must obtain informed consent from the patient and the patient's adult family. This involves providing a full list of options, potential benefits and hazards, short and long term prognosis, costs to the patient and to the government and any time limit that is required. When the family and patient cannot agree, the patient has the final decision.
ix) It is totally inadequate to state abortion is "safe". In fact the evidence shows it is less safe than a full pregnancy and delivery. Those who keep insisting abortion is safer are deliberately ignoring the fact that a pregnancy ending in birth is 3 times longer than that ending in an abortion. During this longer time interval, any health hazard is more likely to occur from chance alone. Abortion is not safe in the short term and rife with health and welfare problems in the long term. But even if it were safe, there is absolutely no evidence of benefit. Sadly, none of the above criteria are made to apply to abortion. This means that electively aborting women is an aberration in the practice of good medicine.
x) The onus of proof that all these provisions have been met, lies with the health care provider, anyone who financially supports the provision of the procedure in question and all those who socially and politically support him/her.
If these criteria (i-x) were honestly and rigorously applied to any prospective abortion, there would be very few.

3. Abortion
Although Bill 4244 repeatedly states that abortion is "proscribed". (This should read, prohibited.) It also expects aborting Philippine women will continue because they make provision for post-abortion help and treatment
Some of the major problems arising from making abortion illegal is that it will make it very difficult for women and men to seek treatment and support. Another is that it often makes it legally necessary to prosecute the woman who has already been victimized by spouse pressures, economic constraints, intellectual or physical handicap etc. It would be much wiser and more just and more economical to prosecute the offending abortionist. This may require making it easier to carry civil suits for damages, strengthening the medical licensing bodies so they can quickly remove a license to practice when the caregiver is clearly not practicing good medicine by doing abortions.
Although abortion in the Philippines is proscribed, the statement that women must have "access to medically safe reproductive services" raises many concerns. Anyone who has encountered the double talk of the UN knows this really means providing elective or chosen abortion. Anyone who has done serious research on the results of chosen abortions, know that there are many ways it is not safe. Certainly it is not therapeutic yet the power of the Secretary of the DOH is great enough to interpret this Bill as providing abortions or at least not prosecuting those who do them.
Many countries have learned, to their regret, that emergency procedures for a miscarriage in fact mean providing a D&C for abortions which any women has sense enough to tell the emergency room physicians is what she is experiencing. Eventually it will be argued that a safe abortion will save many lives. Those arguments and the statistics that are used to support them, are all fictitious. How do we know? It is stated by the man who invented them.(20)
There never were the large numbers of maternal deaths from back-street abortions. In fact many of these so-called back-street abortions were front street. They were clandestinely done in the offices of reputable doctors who were paid extremely well. They were not prosecuted because of an arrangement with the local judge of sheriff. This set up still occurs in countries where abortions are illegal. The dramatic improvement in maternal mortality rates occurred when antibiotics became widely available, not when Roe vs. Wade was decided.
Rather than repeating the mistakes of other countries, the Philippines is in a good position to learn from their mistakes. There is a much better plan (AMBP) see the summary.

4. Ambiguities and double talk.
\
Bill 4244 is full of ambiguities, self-contradicting statements and inconsistencies. They can only be carefully constructed double talk. The advantage to the drafters of this Bill is that these terms and intents are sufficiently vague that the DOH Secretary in formulating and adopting amendments, can almost honestly say, "But I thought that is what the Bill intended"
"Sexual orientation" can and does in some countries, mean anything from man and woman to bisexual, trisexual, transgender, lesbian, etc depending on what an identity any individual chooses to have that day.
"Gender identity" can also mean anything but it recognizes a person's right to choose which ever it might suit his/her fancy and when empowered, force anyone to recognize that identity and make provision for it This can mean separate toilet facilities in the factory for third and forth genders.
It must be remembered that every society, with it's rites and rituals, strengthened a child's inherent sexuality to prevent confusion and to ensure the species would survive. Modern provisions like the ones in this Bill add to an adolescent's confusion. That confusion is too frequently resolved by which of many genders is best at recruiting.
"Life cycle" can easily mean quality of life, which is used to promote euthanasia.
"A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being" is similar to the old WHO definition which is not used because it is unrealistic. Moreover, there is evidence that creatures which struggle to survive and grow are healthier and live longer.
"medically safe and legal" is the code term for abortion in most nations, at least to begin with.
"eradicate discriminatory practices" is a term used to ensure that "homophobia" is expunged even in small children. No consideration is given to understanding what so-called homophobia is and why it is there and why it should be so pervasive and persistent. It is likely to be a natural self and species protective aversive mechanism.
"family planning supplies" really means condoms and the morning after pill, which are to be made freely available to all.

5. Coercion

There are many mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance with Bill 4244. It seems that the authors predict there will be considerable resistance to it. If this Bill were more in accord with the higher human instincts, hopes and aspirations, it would not need so many threats.
This Bill intends to "eliminate violence" to women, presumably by men since it is assumed women and children are not violent. Those who drafted this Bill, seem not to understand that verbal violence, at which women are better equipped, is much more common, damaging and lasting than physical violence. There is no provision for people, health care workers in particular to encourage and model, good manners for men, women, and children. Eliminating can only be coercion. Punishments compound the problems and domestic violence seminars belittle men, making them more docile but also more unpredictable.
Mandatory age appropriate…..sexuality education starting in grade 5….." (Sec. 16) is guaranteed not to work at reducing sexual activity or sexual illnesses. (See Prevention). This provision takes away the parents rights to educate their own children. This right is guaranteed in Sec. 2 which clearly states there will be no discrimination on grounds of religion etc. From the experience of many countries, (the UK and Canada in particular), mandatory sex ed wins every time mostly because of activist judges who want to make laws read as they choose. Parents in some European countries have been imprisoned for not agreeing to the state's demand to sexually educate their small children. The wording of this Bill provides for the same Draconian measures. Educating children for what they need to know when they need to know it is not difficult and does not need to be made mandatory. These coercive measures are not democratic nor do they enhance health nor do they empower women.

The Certificate of Compliance to having been duly educated or indoctrinated before anyone is allowed to obtain a marriage license appears to be a provision strait out the Communist Manifesto. Surely the drafters of Bill 4244 are not serious. Of course people should be well equipped to have and raise children (I wrote a best selling book on the subject, (18) but this cannot work. Most people will ignore it, live in a common law relationship, make no commitment to any kind of connubial relationship or fall into a matriarchy, common in some countries, where the family is held together by the mother who has a husband of convenience and the children a rotating father. The whole issue of pair bonding and commitment is ignored, I suspect because the feminists who wrote this bill, want the power of life and death by deciding which preborn child lives or dies and the power of influence in the developing child by being the only effective parent. The net result is that most families will be unstable, the children will become unstable and the nation will have no stability of direction or purpose. There is A Much Better Plan.

No parental consent is required if the minor has been abused by "family members who are the respondent, accused or convicted perpetrators" This provision of Bill4244 is full of ambiguities and misconceptions and great dangers. The drafters obviously mean sexual abuse by abuse but don't write that. There are at least 3 kinds of abuse, physical, verbal and sexual. The drafters may not realize there are multiple contributors (6) to any tragedy, sometimes including the victim. They should have taken into account the not so uncommon phenomena of fictitious sexual abuse from the False Memory Syndrome and the Parent Alienation Syndrome, both of which result in false accusations. These are complex matters which no "prosecutorial office" can quickly decide. The net effect is that minors will have emergency morning after pills or abortions without their parent's awareness or consent, which will do great damage to families. Mostly men will be unjustly imprisoned and children will be without a father they love and respect. Research agrees that minors are most damaged by abortions.

The government shall guarantee the right of any person to provide or receive non-fraudulent information" is a provision with an implied threat that those deemed "fraudulent" might not provide any information about family planning care with which the government disagrees. Even if the government or its agents are scientifically out of date or politically rather than medically motivated their agents can still rule someone they disagree with as being fraudulent. Since it does not define what is fraudulent or who decides if this information is incorrect, it is not hard to imagine this is aimed at physicians, who because of their moral conscience or greater knowledge, will not provide information about the morning after pill or contraceptive medication or devices or abortion.

There are many provisions for monitoring in this Bill to provide information on compliance. Collecting real information is a difficult task at any time but when there are provisions in this bill, which intrude and exclude basic individual and family freedoms, the job will become impossible. Then the government should recognize the monster that they have created and discard it. What usually occurs is that the government redoubles its efforts. This results in more people spying on ordinary citizens and more bureaucrats coding and storing information and more statisticians trying to make sense of it and more writers of reports churning out material that nobody is going to use because they are convinced this Bill is inaugurated and maintained not for anyone's benefit but for the ideology of those who set it up and who are now well ensconced in positions of power. It is an exercise in futility with enough additional agents and red tape to drive any nation under. Besides which there is little information on what parameters of success or failure that will be used. Maternal mortality is useful but not the most useful in determining whether mothers, fathers and children are healthier. They should also have baseline measures on rates of prematurity, birth weights, family violence, divorce, abortion, breast feeding, drug abuse etc. etc. There should also be a stated commitment by the government that it is prepared to abandon this project, repair the damage and compensate those who have suffered as the result of this ill-conceived Bill, if there is good evidence it does not work.

6. Reproductive health information, alias sex ed.

Preventing reproductive illness should be the first priority of this Bill but the methods they propose for adolescent reproductive health education, are known to fail in many other countries. The scientific evidence shows that the more sex education, the more sexual activity with all the worst consequences. The evidence also shows is that the earlier the sex education, the earlier the sexual activity. This evidence has had no effect on those who promote sex education for their motivation is profit or power or ideology or all three. They just insist that the education should start earlier and earlier. One of the main consequences of sex education is a rapid increase in the rate of abortions, 27% of teenagers in Canada.
Our research has also discovered that the outcome of the first pregnancy is closely associated with the outcomes of subsequent pregnancies. If a woman aborts her first pregnancy then she is significantly more likely to abort the next. If the first pregnancy is a full term live birth, she is more likely to have more live births. Our data also shows that if the young mothers do not abort their first pregnancy, they are as likely as any other age group to have full term, full birth weight babies. We also found that a previous abortion decreases the mother's ability to bond to a subsequent child and therefore statistically more often abuse and neglect the next child. The infants born to mothers who have had an abortion are much less likely to be breast fed. The list of harmful effects from sex education is much longer.
There is no mention of Human Papilloma Virus in this Bill even though it has become the recent scourge of Reproductive Health. Is this because this Bill was written before HPV or because the writers don't know about it or because it runs counter to another part of their intended information package for teens? HPV can be oral or anal or vaginal. It causes cancer in all areas used for sex. The condom provides no protection no matter how well it is worn. HPV mutates rapidly and thus no treatment or prevention (immunization) can be certain. Yet those who push for sex ed will promote "oral, anal or sex with condoms young people (grade 5 and up) if you don't want to get a girl pregnant" This is tantamount to murder. Would you recommend flying a certain airways if you knew there was a good chance their aircraft will crash It hasn't happened yet, but soon someone will bring a malpractice suit against sex educators for false reproductive information that led to them having a sexually related cancer.
There are now 35+ sexually transmitted diseases, so wouldn't a sane person refrain from all sex outside a committed relationship? Abstinence and monogamy are found to prevent diseases better than any sex information program but it is not mentioned here. This option is much less expensive and there are many people who are ready to instruct young people about it with little or no remuneration.
Teens desperately need to know about pair bonding but it also is not mentioned. They need to know that even the most casual sex results in some degree of life long bonding. This means that for the rest of their lives they are bonded to whomever they had sex. Those extraneous bonds interfere with connubial bliss in marriage and hamper intimacy. They also increase the chance of divorce. This is mainly why scientific evidence shows that the more premarital sex, the more extramarital sex.

6. Euthanasia

Because of exponential population decline, the economics of many countries have gone into a "recession" and the tax base shrunken. These countries can no longer provide good medical care or social services to old people. They have thus invented "burgeoning old people" as if somehow there were more elderly than there was at some hypothetical time in the recent past.
In addition, because wanted children are sick and tired of trying to please their elders they tend to resent and avoid them. Now strapped for cash, their major asset (their home) losing value and jobs hard to find, they softly but soon stridently demand euthanasia because "granny has lost her quality of life and should not have to suffer." "Besides there are not enough replacement organs for my generation so we should be able to harvest those of older people who have had enough chance for a good life." (Harvesting of organs from euthanized people is being done in Belgium.)
One of the major drawbacks is that people don't trust doctors less well when physicians both cure and kill.(16) This is why Hippocrates and his colleagues swore never to abort or poison their patients. When doctors are not well trusted they must spend more time explaining procedures, getting informed consent, ordering more diagnostic tests, getting and giving more 2nd opinions etc. Eventually the state must pay and the health care costs spiral out of control or essential services are cut.
Since this Bill gives preeminent place to Reproductive Health, and the treatment of STIs, other services must be cut. Recent history shows, the first cuts are to mental health. Soon the streets of modern cities are filled with chronic mentally ill people, begging pitifully. They are seen as a disgrace to "our once lovely city", an impediment to the tourist industry and swept up into old style mental hospitals where they are "treated" with unproven psychotropic drugs. There for lack of appropriate levels of staffing and the side effects of anti depressants and anti psychotics, they die younger than they should.

7. The anti family, government does all direction.

This Bill has many provisions that exclude the right of parents to determine what, when and how their children should be taught. Some parents will fight this direction from pulpits, election platforms and in the courts. The majority will role over with, "I'm glad the responsible government sex educator is doing it. I sure didn't know how". Or they will say with relief, I can't control my teenager and since she got herself into trouble (got pregnant), I'm glad the government clinics will look after it for me"
The government will argue, "Since someone must tell young people the facts of life and reproduction and the parents refuse, we will reluctantly have to do this immensely difficult task. Mind you, they will have to pay the extra taxes to salary our trainer's wages".

8. Population control back fires.

Though the drafters of Bill 4244 are careful to state they will help couples achieve "their desired family size", they also state the ideal size is 2 children and they will try hard to ensure that happens with the provisions of this Bill. There is no evidence put forward, in fact there is none available to support their contention that 2 is ideal because this has never been done before. They are guessing. They don't seem to realize this is a nation-wide experiment with no proper measures or controls.
The best available evidence shows that every country that has tried population control, found the experiment went wrong. The result was an exponential decline in fertility, followed closely with plummeting birth rates and consequently economic recession. There are too many unknown or unpredictable parameters.
It is known that once a population reaches a low reproduction level, it completely dies out. The Tasmanian natives are an example. They no longer exist as a race, not because they couldn't survive, but because they no longer had the hope and drive to live that attends a sufficient number of children.
Even though backed by brilliant minds, amazing technologies and powerful weapons, the USA could not stop a predictable recession. Their respite is dependent on borrowed or newly printed money. Those who loaned that money will not wait indefinitely for that debt to be paid. It can't be repaid in cash, so they will accept concessions and intrusions in lieu. This will make the average American very anxious and belligerent. The next war is as easily foreseen as all those previously predicted but not prevented.
Why would the Philippines go the route of the painful tragic reenactments of so many other countries? People who know and respect the Philippines are asking, "Are they blind or are they being heavily influenced by foreign threats and incentives?"

9. There is no real division in medicine.

Bill 4244 for Reproductive Health is an anachronism. There are no real distinctions in the health of one system of the mind-body-spirit unity that is a person. To carve out a separate division does not serve the interests of patients even though it makes the practice of medicine somewhat more convenient.
The mind regulates all systems but mental health is given no emphasis in this Bill. When people are mentally healthy they preserve their health with wholesome nutrition and activity. When young people are well taught and given hope for their futures, they tend to wait for marriage for sex. What people need for mental health is not so complex or expensive that the government can do nothing about it. At least the government should not obstruct personal development with major conflicts created in the minds of young people thru sex education leading to sex activity.
There is no need for a distinct sex education any more than there should be for respiratory education. Young people need some guidance and the opportunity to learn health protection and maintenance when they need it as they need it. Thus their need is only for health education, which covers all the systems.

SUMMARY

Bill 4244 has too many invalid assumptions, misinformation, vagaries and dangerous double talk to be of value to the very pragmatic Philippinos. Below is a very brief summary of some of the errors and omissions.
1. There is no supporting evidence to indicate that this Bill will be good for women, men, children or the nation. Thus it is a nation-wide experiment without the usual controls
2. There is good evidence from other countries and from research to show it will do more harm than good.
3. This Bill is written with many ambiguities into which the Secretary of the DOH can formulate and adopt amendments at will.
4. Though this Bill takes precedence over many others, there are no checks and balances.
5. There is no attempt to provide an estimated budget, but from similar provisions in other countries, the costs are very large and keep growing.
6. It appears the government is not prepared to alert their citizens regarding what other programs must be cut or how much the taxes will increase to adequately fund these provisions.
7. The out of date data on which much of this is built and the language that is used, dates this Bill as essentially from the 1960ies and drafted by ideologically driven feminists from the UN or US.
8. The very sexist orientation of this Bill will pit women and men against each other to the great detriment of families and children.
9. There is no precedent for balanced population control. All attempts so far have ended in exponential fertility decline.
10. There is no data or reason to support the contention that 2 children is the ideal number. In all probability it will end in serious population decline if adhered to.
11. There is a great deal of coercion, which should alert people, senators in particular that this Bill will be difficult to impose.
12. Since it is impossible to run an improving economic situation on a free market economy with a declining population, it is predictable that the Philippines will regret this Bill but won't be able to reverse it's effects.
13. There is too much power given to the Secretary of the DOH and the wording is so vague or couched in private double talk, it is likely that the next steps will be government sponsored abortions, Human Rights Tribunals to enforce acceptance of any kind of sexual deviation, parent offending and alienating sex education, and increasing population control.
14. When wealthy ideologically driven, powerful people believe that the world should be completely devoid of any human life so evolution can have another chance to produce a more environmentally friendly species, it is not hard to believe the hidden agenda of this Bill is a significant step toward ridding the world of Philippinos as a start to serious depopulation.
15. With so many ambiguities, so much power to the Secretary of DOH and with the history of many other countries, it is safe to predict that within a few years, there will be unlimited abortions, increasing gender confusion, human rights tribunals and euthanasia unless the government of the Philippines act decisively to avoid the provisions of Bill 4244 and seek a wiser alternative.
16. The Philippines, before passing this Bill, should at least spend time considering alternatives. I sincerely hope they will carefully read the proposal: A Much Better Plan on the pages to follow. I pray that God would guide them and keep them from the foolish, nation destructive and individual harming ways of the "Western" and "European" nations.

A MUCH BETTER PLAN (part statement)

Basic Assumptions

1. The better a plan's basic assumption fit reality, the better the plan and the outcome.

2. No one can benefit at the expense of another.
If something is not good for one's neighbor, it will no be good for him. If it isn't good for a man, it won't be good for a woman. If not good for a child, it will not be good for parents, if not good for black, it cannot be good for brown or white people.

3. Truth and gravity always win.
There is no benefit to lies and double talk.

4. The better the assumptions and the greater the truth, the easier the plan is to enact, put into operation and monitor, partly because people understand and trust it more.

5. People are not stupid.
As they say. "You can fool all the people, some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. People will eventually catch on but sometimes it is too late and disaster becomes unavoidable.

6. What is good for individuals is good for the country.

7. Persuasion beats coercion.

8. ETC

Pragmatic Plan

1. People are the country's greatest asset. The more people the greater a country's wealth and power. Since government attempts at control have always failed, let people decide.
2. Perinatal health for all. The WHO found that better quality perinatal care was the most important factor relating to lower and sustainable fertility control.
3. Wholesome health. Men and women both need encouragement to be healthy in all aspects of body mind and spirit They respond well to more say in maintaining health but need much better instruction on what works, not what the media pushes.
4. Men must have more rights and influence in reproductive choices
5. Inventions are what give many advantages to any country. Encourage inventiveness in young people. It also increases their hope which is what keeps them looking after themselves and their future.
6. Labor is an exportable commodity. For example, the government can charge an export tax to importing countries. It must take greater interest in the health and welfare of oversees Philippinos.
7. Teach health education with the emphasis on self respect and self protection, not sex education
8. Integrate all aspects of health, instead of segmentalizing.
9. Decriminalize abortion but increase penalties to those who perform abortion in any way.
10. Encourage the practice of good medicine, as defined above, in all aspects of health promotion and maintenance.
11. Space children with natural family planning, a number of which programs are more effective than contraceptive medication and condoms.
12. Help young people to firmly establish their sex with programs that affirm not confuse their natural orientation.
13. Focus on families by making sure, everyone in the family circle has an opportunity to express their opinion and have a vote in family health matters, with the fathers as leader and provider.
14. Teach parents how to guide their children in health matters.
15. Assist in space exploration and colonizing. May the Philippines have the first family living comfortably on the moon.
16. ETC,

REFERENCES

1. NEY PG. "Child Mistreatment: Possible Reasons for its Transgenerational Transmission", Can J Psychiatry 34:594-601, 1989.
2. NEY PG. "Transgenerational Child Abuse", Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 18:151-168, 1988.
3. NEY PG. "Triangles of Child Abuse: A Model of Maltreatment", Child Abuse Negl 12:363-373, 1988.
4. NEY PG. "Does Verbal Abuse Leave Deeper Scars: A Study of Children & Parents", Can J Psychiatry 32:371-378, 1987.
5. NEY PG. WICKETT AR. FUNG T. "Causes of Child Abuse and Neglect", Can J Psychiatry 37:401-405, 1992.
6. NEY PG. FUNG T. WICKETT AR. "Child Neglect: The Precursor to Child Abuse", Pre- and Perinatal Psychology J. 8(2): 95-112, 1993.
7. NEY PG. FUNG T. WICKETT AR. "The Worst Combinations of Child Abuse and Neglect", Child Abuse and Neglect, 18(9), 705-714, 1994. ,
8. NEY PG. "A Consideration of Abortion Survivors", Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 13:168-179, 1983.
9. NEY PG, WICKETT AR. "Mental Health and Abortion: Review and Analysis", Psychiatr Univ Ott 14:506-516, 1989
10. REARDON DC, NEY PG, SCHEUREN F, COUGLE J, COLEMAN PK, STRHAN TW. Deaths Associated with Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women. South Med J 2002 Aug; 95 (8): 834-4
11. REARDON DC, NEY PG, COUGLE JR, RUE VM, SHUPING MW, COLEMAN PK. "Psychiatric Admissions of Low-Income Women Following Abortion and Childbirth, CMAJ.2003 168: 1252-1256.
12. NEY PG. FUNG T. WICKETT AR. "Relationship Between Induced Abortion and Child Abuse, Pre and Peri-Natal Psychology J. 8: 43-63, 1993
13. NEY PG. FUNG T. WICKETT AR. BEAMAN-DODD C. "The Effects of Pregnancy Loss on Women'sHealth. Soc Sci Med 38(9) 1193-1200, 1994
14. NEY PG, BALL K, SHEILS C. "Results of Group Psychotherapy for Abuse, . Neglect and Pregnancy Loss." Current Women's Health Reviews, 2010,6, 332-340.
15. NEY PG. PETERS A. Ending the Cycle of Abuse, New York: Taylor & Francis, 1995.
16. NEY PG. Deeply Damaged (3rd ed), Victoria: Pioneer Publishing, 1997.
17. NEY PG. "Christian Principles for Palliative Care". Victoria: Pioneer Publishing, 2007
18. NEY PG, NEY PM. How to Raise a Family for Fun and Profit (Yours and Theirs). Victoria: Pioneer Publishing, 1972.
19. NEY PG, NEY PM. How to Raise a Family for Fun and Profit (Yours and Theirs). Victoria: Pioneer Publishing, 1972.
20. Nathanson B. Aborting America 1979 Double Day, New York