01 June 2011

Pokémon RH


My live tweets during the May 18 session of the House of Representatives for the consideration of House Bill No. 4244 or the Reproductive Health Bill:
  • Rep. Manny Pacquiao is now at the podium to interpellate Rep. Edcel Lagman.
  • Rep. Lagman (in response to Rep. Pacquiao): ...I am ready to rumble!
  • Rep. Pacquiao: May kasabihan tayo. United we stand... (long pause)... Divided we fall. [Whut?!]
  • Rep. Pacquaio: There are other measures to combat poverty.
  • Rep. Lagman: Marami ngang ibang paraan. However, the #RHbill should be included as one of the solutions.
  • Rep. Pacquaio: May mga pag-aaral ba re: population, family size, and dev't?
  • Rep. Lagman: Hindi pwedeng ikumpara sa ibang bansa. Ang polisiyang ito ay walang demographic target.
  • Rep. Lagman: Itong tinatawag niyong 2-child policy, hindi ganun ang nasa #RHbill. Ideal family size lang. We had it removed already.
  • Rep. Pacquiao questions funding: Hindi po ba ito magpapahirap lalo sa tax payers?
  • Rep. Lagman: Ang budget ay maliit kumpara sa projects ng gov't. P 3B lang. Meager percentage.
  • Rep. Pacquiao: Ang mandatory teaching ng sex ed ay labag sa Constitution-- Sec. 5 of Bill of Rights (free exercise of religion).
  • Rep. Lagman: Hindi 'yan mangyayari. Sa dalawang dekada nang survey, tinanong kung pabor ang respondents sa pagturo ng family planning. Overwhelming, gusto nila. Walang basehan ang apprehension na 'yan. We respect the freedom of religion. Nasagot na ito kahapon. Marami pong desisyon ang Korte Suprema na may distinction ang freedom of religion. Ang freedom to believe ay absolute.
  • This is not an interpellation! Question and answer portion lang! Nasaan ang debate?! Nasaan ang follow-up questions?!
  • Rep. Pacquiao: Required ba ang students dahil nasa curriculum ang sex ed. | Rep. Lagman: Hindi. Walang basehan. Maaaring ma-exempt.
  • Rep. Pacquiao cites Wisconsin v. Yoder: There is no doubt as to the power of a State, having a high responsibility for education of its citizens, to impose reasonable regulations for the control and duration of basic education. Providing public schools ranks at the very apex of the function of a State. Yet even this paramount responsibility was, in Pierce, made to yield to the right of parents to provide an equivalent education in a privately operated system. There the Court held that Oregon's statute compelling attendance in a public school from age eight to age 16 unreasonably interfered with the interest of parents in directing the rearing of their offspring, including their education in church-operated schools. As that case suggests, the values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society. Thus, a State's interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children so long as they "prepare [them] for additional obligations." It follows that in order for Wisconsin to compel school attendance beyond the eighth grade against a claim that such attendance interferes with the practice of a legitimate religious belief, it must appear either that the State does not deny the free exercise of religious belief by its requirement, or that there is a state interest of sufficient magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise Clause.... The essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. We can accept it as settled, therefore, that, however strong the State's interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion or subordination of all other interests.
  • Rep. Pacquiao: Ang pagbibigay ba ng condom at pills ay mas higit pa bang interes kaysa sa constitutionally guaranteed right of free exercise of religion?
  • Rep. Lagman: Ang nagbigay ng kasong Wisconsin v. Yoder sa inyo ay hindi sa inyo sinabi na hindi ito kapares ng sa #RHbill. Incomplete ang impormasyon na binigay sa inyo. Sa RH Bill, may FREEDOM OF INFORMED CHOICE!
  • Rep. Pacquiao: Sa Sec. 21, nakasaad ang Employers' Responsibilities. Ano po ba ang definition ng RH services dito? Walang specific definition. Ibig sabihin ba ang employers ay magsu-supply ng condoms at pills sa empleyado nang libre? Baka mabawasan pa ang sahod ng mga empleyado? Ang Section na ito ay lumalabag sa free exercise of religion dahil hindi nabanggit ang religious considerations ng employers.
  • Rep. Lagman: Tinanggal na po ang obligasyon ng employers.
  • Rep. Pacquiao: Tinanggal na ang penalty pero wala pa po tayo sa amendment period?
  • Rep. Lagman: Ang mga authors mismo ang ang-submit ng amendments sa Committee. Pag dating po ng Period of Amendments, mayroon pong undertaking ang Committee para hindi na masama ang provisions na 'yan sa panukala.
  • Rep. Lagman: Sa ngayon po, hindi pa natatanggal 'yan dahil hindi pa umabot sa Period of Amendments. Pero ang authors na mismo ang nagpatanggal 'yan. Itago mo sa bato, matatanggal 'yan.
  • Rep. Apostol moved to adjourn. Questions quorum. Rep. Tañada suspends session temporarily.
  • Session resumes. Roll is called upon the motion of Rep. Garin.
  • OMG! Present si Rep. Jules Ledesma! Nagpalakpakan ang audience at ilang Congressmen nang natawag siya at nagtaas ng kamay. Haha!
  • 125 members responded to the call. NO QUORUM AT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES!



No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...