|
By Rome Jorge, Lifestyle Editor
What are abortifacients and why is knowing exactly what they are so
important?
The Reproductive Health Bill, which seeks to
expand current reproductive health services, is vehemently opposed
by the Catholic Church, conservative groups and other groups that
label themselves “pro-life.”
Current reproductive health services are
evidently inadequate. At least 10 Filipino women die daily due to
pregnancy and childbirth-related complications. Contraceptives are
available but cannot be afforded by the poor. There is no values
formation and sex education in school. There is much ignorance about
responsible parenthood, gender equality, safe sex and sexually
transmitted diseases. Population growth occurs mostly among the poor
while the wealthy reap the benefits of lower birth rates.
But opponents of the Reproductive Health Bill
argue that it is unconstitutional. “The State shall equally
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception,” states Article II, Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution. It clearly bans abortion.
Just as clearly, the Reproductive Health Bill
does not allow abortion. It only makes possible informed choices on
contraception—preventing conception of life from taking place. So
what’s the problem?
Anti-choice advocates argue that some
contraceptives are also abortifacients—substances that induce
abortions.
All sorts of abortifacients
Mifepristone, also known as RU-486 in many
countries where abortion is legal, is one abortifacient. Cytotec
(misoprostol), originally intended as an anti-inflammatory drug for
gastric ulcers, is now banned in the Philippines after it was used
for do-it-yourself illegal abortions. Methergin (methylergonovine
maleate), used for the prevention and control of postpartum
hemorrhage, requires prescription to prevent its abuse.
But even commonly available herbs, vegetables
and fruits have been reputed as abortifacients. Pamparegla, the
amber liquid sold by hawkers around Quiapo Church concocted from
Damong Maria or Maiden Wort (Artemisia vulgaris Linn), is suspect.
Even papayas, the innocent fruit favored by the religious for its
libido-diminishing properties, have been reputed to be an
abortifacient when taken in large quantities. (Doctors dismiss
herbal remedies and massive fruit consumption as well overdoses of
pain relievers such as Cortal or aspirin as ineffective and
potentially dangerous.)
To add to the confusion, anti-choice advocates
claim that contraceptives such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and
“morning-after pills” that prevent conception even a few days
after unprotected sex are also abortifacients.
The root of the argument
IUDs and morning-after pills work by not only
preventing fertilization—the fusion of sperm and egg—but also
implantation—the adherence of the embryo to the wall of uterus.
American and British laws define the beginning
pregnancy and the conception of human life at implantation, hence
the classification of IUDs and morning-after pills as
contraceptives, not abortifacients. However, religious conservatives
argue that human life begins at fertilization.
Tellingly, religious conservatives and other
anti-choice advocates not only oppose IUDs and morning-after pills
but also all contraceptives including condoms—the only
contraceptive that prevents STDs as well as accidental pregnancies.
They also oppose sex education and knowledge empowerment of young
adults.
Doctor knows best, woman knows best
Amid these allegations, hearsay and urban
legends, Dr. Ma. Stephanie Fay Cagayan, associate professor at the
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of the
Philippines College of Medicine and consultant at UP-Philippine
General Hospital (PGH) Medical Center gives her opinion both as a
doctor and a woman.
She notes: “Some pills may act as
abortifacients only if they are used regarding their function to
inhibit implantation. But when one uses pills as abortifacient, the
assumption is it is fully well known that fertilization has taken
place [which is a fact that is difficult to prove unless we have a
positive pregnancy test]. But when we use pills as family planning
method [in the regular context of use], the main mechanism of action
is to prevent fertilization hence its action as a contraceptive
takes precedence.”
Dr. Cagayan adds, “The existence of these
post-fertilization mechanisms is debated. Even if post-fertilization
mechanisms were proven, these substances would still be labeled as
contraceptives, rather than abortifacients.”
She opines, “Banning contraceptives is
irrational. They have very little life-threatening or major side
effects. And they allow for a very effective means of spacing
children. Medical evidence shows that all the possible medical risks
connected with contraceptives are infinitely lower than the risks of
an actual pregnancy and everyday activities.”
Dr. Cagayan declares, “I support the
reproductive health bill because it will allow for universal access
of sound and cost effective health care for Filipino women. It will
empower couples with the information and opportunity to plan their
family and space their children. This will thus allow optimization
of care for children who will have more opportunities for good
education and education thus leading to a more productive life for
all members of the family.”
To read the entire draft of the Reproductive
Health Act, visit
http://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/population/documents/HB4110.pdf.
|
