THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL:

WHAT GOOD IS IT?

by

Jared Dale Combista

©MMXI

i

Table of Contents PROLOGUE

PART I ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Socialized Healthcare and its Flaws ..................................................................................................... 1

The Overpopulation Hysteria ................................................................................................................. 3

Parenthood Policies in Europe ................................................................................................................... 8

The Overpopulation and Poverty .......................................................................................................... 11

Thomas Malthus and the Neo-Malthusians ............................................................................................. 11

Is There Any Connection?......................................................................................................................... 12

A Crowded Community ............................................................................................................................. 13

The Other Side of the Coin ....................................................................................................................... 14

Insufficient Supplies ................................................................................................................................. 15

Energy Problems: The Focus on Oil ......................................................................................................... 16

PART I: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 18

PART II ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

The Connection between the Sexual Revolution and the Degradation of Families ............. 19

The Sexual Revolution .............................................................................................................................. 19

George Akerlof and Janet Yellen .............................................................................................................. 19

The Importance of the Family .................................................................................................................. 20

PART II: CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 22

EPILOGUE

PROLOGUE Note: I have decided to revise this document because of outdated information and

grammatical & typographical errors. Pardon the inconvenience and thank you for taking time

to read this.

There has been much debate regarding the so-called House Bill 4244. The Catholic Church in

the Philippines is battling against this bill on moral grounds. Although I—as a Catholic—would

agree with them, I am to enter this debate on purely secular grounds, using positive economic

judgment.

On the pro-RH side, they have not—in fact—provided positive reasons why the RH bill ought to

be pushed through—they simply state normative opinions, along with various argumenta ad

hominem against the Catholic Church, specifically the CBCP, which I cannot personally fathom.

In fact, the Church has been proven right on so many things, that the infallibility of the Catholic

Church would no longer have to be in question. And by opposing the so-called “reproductive

health bill,” the Church has yet to commit a mistake.

Allow me then to present the various flaws of the so-called reproductive healthcare bill, and I

pray that these arguments may enlighten the minds of people who are utterly misguided.

Jared Dale T. Combista

May 14, 2011

Feast of St. Matthias the Apostle

1 | P a g e

PART I

Socialized Healthcare and its Flaws The RH bill would be classified as something which promotes socialized healthcare—one

provided by the government (like the military force or the police force). Milton Friedman, the

famous economist and statistician, opposed socialize healthcare and stated that healthcare does

not need any government financing at all.1 Since politicians classify contraceptives as essential

medicine (which in itself is whimsical), it is therefore under the classification of healthcare.

Friedman, in his lecture at the Mayo clinic in 1978 stated below:

“In addition to the fact that the ultimate result of a government takeover is less

resources, you enviably get a lower quality and a lower quantity of medical care.”

He went on to say:

“I am going to cite a research conducted by British physician Dr. Max Gannon—who

spent five years studying the British health service. Gannon—in a rather amusing way—

developed a theory called bureaucratic displacement. He argued that whenever you have

an organization taken over by a bureaucracy like a government, what tends to happen

is—that input goes up and output goes down—that useless work tends to displace useful

work—is further extension of Parkinson’s Law. He illustrated it with hospital service of

the United Kingdom. He took the eighth year period from 1965 to 1973. In that eight year

period, the hospital staff—the number of people—went up 28%. Incidentally, the

administrative and clerical health went up to 1%. But what about output? What about

what they were producing? What was up? Well, he measured output by the average

number of beds occupied daily. It turned out that the average number of beds occupied

daily went down by 11%. And he hastened to go on to explain that the decline in the

average number of beds occupied was not for one of patients—that all the time, there was

a waiting list in a neighborhood of 600,000 people, waiting for hospital beds. I don’t

know how many of you know the scandals of Britain in the waiting period for what is

1 The Role of the Government in Healthcare, Milton Friedman 1978

2 | P a g e

regarded as optional or ‘postpone-able2’—including bypass operations for heart

problems. There are stories of people who waited three years for a bypass operation

because that could be postponed. Indeed, some of them managed to die before the

operation was performed. But 600,000 people waiting—on the waiting list; henceforth,

rather more readily and more obviously ‘postpone-able’ operations—the wait may be

much longer among those figures.”

Source: The Economics of Socialized Medicine, Milton Friedman 1978

A woman who could go have a tubal ligation performed by a private doctor—and would have had

save enough money to do so—would in fact rely on the government to provide such, considering

she has not saved enough money. The flaw with this, as Friedman stated above, is that there is

much input, but less output. Ergo, the bill would not be enough to provide everybody with

“reproductive healthcare.3” In everything that would be socialized, there would have to be

coordination problems—especially when it is the government who will carry the burden of

distributing contraceptives and such. And need I mention that this is where your taxes go?

About ₱13.4B is currently being allocated for the RH bill—taxpayers’ money.

2 The actual word used by Friedman—probably made it himself. 3 I stick with the moral values of the Catholic Church—any contraceptive or sterilization method is still morally illicit. But I’m not arguing on those grounds.

3 | P a g e

The Overpopulation Hysteria Another thing, the RH bill has been proposed to solve the problem of overpopulation. Pro-RH

people believe that the Philippines is overpopulated, hence we need something like the RH bill

to keep the population stable.

Herein below, I am to show the population pyramid of the Philippines as of 2010:

Figure 1

Then, we move on to the population pyramid of the country 40 years later:

Figure 2

Notice the shift in the line which indicates those aged 0-4? The line appears shorter in 2050

than that of 2010. This is without the RH bill—fertility rates have been decreasing and have been

predicted to be decreasing.

4 | P a g e

Figure 3 (Philippine Total Fertility Rate, Index Mundi)

In 2008, fertility rates rose to 3.32 in 2008. Then in 2009, the figures dropped to 3.27. Finally,

in 2011, it dropped by 1.24%, to 3.19. Fertility rates are dropping as we speak, and will continue

to drop. Fluctuations may happen, but such is a natural phenomenon. We also have to take into

consideration that 93% of Filipinos are literate4—knowledgeable enough to know that sex results

in pregnancy and that they will bear the burden of having many children.

Though I am doing my best not to state testimonies, I would like people to know that my

grandmother and grandfather had nine children, including my mother. However, when my

mother got married, she and my father now only had four children—with me included. All my

other aunts only had two children, my two uncles had three, my other uncle had four and

another uncle of mine had none. It is probably observable that people are resorting to having

fewer children as time passes by, and as the literacy rate increases.

I happened to do a small survey on Facebook with 16 of my friends as respondents. Though they

come from a middle-class/upper middle class background, I believe this would still prove

something.

4 US Department of State, Background: Philippines

5 | P a g e

Respondents Children in the Family

Children in the Family (Mother)

Children in the Family

(Father)

Prospective Children/Children

of Respondents 1 3 7 7 5 2 3 6 4 2 3 5 3 7 2 4 4 6 12 2 5 5 6 6 4 6 4 7 11 2 7 3 1 7 4 8 2 9 5 3.5 9 4 6 9 2.5

10 3 13 2 5 11 3 9 10 2 12 7 5 4 0 13 1 11 5 0 14 4 4 1 1 15 4 8 4 2 16 3 7 3 2.5

TOTAL: 58 108 97 39.5 AVERAGE: 6.8 12.7 11.4 4.6

Table 1

If one might notice, the number of children couples has and individuals are planning to have is

decreasing—compared the last generation, where the figures appear larger. From the average of

12.7 and 11.4, it has decreased to 6.8 and in the future, it’ll probably decrease to 4.6 and will

most likely decrease over time.

With our dropping fertility rate and decreasing number of children we intend to have in the

future, do we still need something like the RH bill to further maintain this? We ought to look at

Europe to find out.

But before that, we first have to understand that the ideal fertility rate is 2.1, and that is what we

call the replacement rate.5 6 The replacement rate is equal to two children—they replace the

mother and the father respectively. So when a nation has a fertility rate under 2.1, the nation

experiences under-replacement.

5 Espenshade TJ, Guzman JC, and Westoff CF (2003). "The surprising global variation in replacement fertility". Population Research and Policy Review 22 (5/6): 575. 6 Developing countries may have replacement rates as high as 3.3, as infant and child mortality rates are most likely high.

6 | P a g e

Let us look at the world fertility rates (pardon me if this appears too small).

Figure 4

Asia (which we are a part of)—excluding Japan, India and China—has a fertility rate of 2.47% as

of 2000-05. When we look at Japan, their fertility rate is at 1.29%, much lower than the ideal

replacement rate. We can also notice that Europe’s fertility rate is at 1.41%, lower than 2.1. You

may notice that there are others below 2.1 as well.

Let us then look at Europe:

Figure 5

We can observe that none of the countries have hit the 2.1 mark. The highest so far is Iceland,

with only less than a million, in terms of population.

7 | P a g e

Now, we go further to focus on one country, and that is Sweden. However, we shall use the

Population Pyramid to see what is wrong.

Figure 6

Many would say that Sweden is doing quite well, even with the elderly female population shown

above, as people ages 40 - 49 and 20 - 24 are aplenty.

Let’s then look at Sweden forty years later.

Figure 7

What is wrong with this picture? We can see that the population of those ages 80 and above is

higher than any of those below. These people receive pension and elderly care, paid by the

government through taxpayer’s money. As a matter of fact, the lowest shown above are of those

aged 0 – 9, and these are future citizens and taxpayers of Sweden. To make matters worse, the

population of those aged 55 – 69—retirement ages as one might notice—also appear to be larger

8 | P a g e

than any of those below it. In the future, fertility rates will continue to decline, and might even

spell extinction for a nation. Are these nations resorting to drastic measures to keep their

demographics stable? Let’s find out.

Parenthood Policies in Europe

Most countries in Europe are now resorting to “Parenthood Policies.”

In Sweden, each parent is entitled to 18 months leave, which is paid for by the

government. Public day care is heavily subsidized and flexible work schedules are

common - women with children of pre-school age are entitled to reduce their working

hours. Women's participation in the work force is high. In Norway, mothers are entitled

to 12 months off work with 80% pay or 10 months with full pay. Fathers are entitled to

take almost all of that leave instead of the mother. Fathers must take at least four weeks

leave or else those weeks will be lost for both parents. The leave is financed through

taxes, so employers don't lose out.

In the UK, new mothers currently get six months' paid leave and the option of six months

further unpaid leave. The first six weeks are at 90% of pay and the next 20 at £102.80

per week. New fathers are allowed two weeks' paid leave at a maximum £102.80 a week.

The government offers free early education places. Children from the age of four get free

part-time places at nurseries - some three year olds also get places.

Parents of children under the age of six have the right to ask their employers for more

flexible working hours. Although employers don't have to agree with the request, they

have to show they have considered it carefully.

Ireland has the highest fertility rate in the EU, despite the fact that child care is seen as

underdeveloped and expensive.

Mothers get 26 weeks maternity leave plus 14 weeks parental leave

Germany has long had one of the lowest birth rates in the European Union and one of

the highest proportions of childless women. According to EU statistics from 2005, 30%

of German women have not had children.

9 | P a g e

Demographers say Germany's problem has probably been made worse because it has

been ignored for so long

The government offers 14 weeks maternity leave plus parental leave of up to 36 months,

with the level of pay depending on a number of factors.

One of the biggest problems is a real lack of child care places. According to government

figures, only one in five children under three get a place in day care. Not only do they

close at lunch time, but the fees are incredibly high. Another problem for working

parents is that traditionally, the school day ends at 1pm.

The government has now lifted the birth rate to the top of the political agenda. In

January, it adopted a bill to give tax breaks to families. It has also floated the idea of

eliminating fees for kindergarten.

France has employed various policies to try to reconcile family life with women working.

It has some of the most extensive state-funded child care in Europe.

Mothers can take 16 weeks paid maternity leave for the first child, rising to 26 weeks for

the third child. There is also a total of 26 months parental leave.

Last year, the government pledged more money for families with three children in an

effort to encourage working women to have more babies.

Child care facilities are subsidized by the government. Younger children are entitled to

full-day childcare (crèches). For children aged two to three there are pre-school

programs for which families pay on a sliding scale.

Currently Spain has the second-lowest rate of fertility among the original 15 EU member

states. However in the early 1970s, it was among the highest.

10 | P a g e

Until recently, there had been strong public opposition to any government action aimed

at increasing fertility, partly because such policies were associated with Franco's regime

and partly because fertility was perceived as too high.

In 2003, the government introduced a national family policy but there is still a belief that

family creation is a private matter. However, Spanish PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero

has been urging companies to set up child care facilities and promoting long-term

employment over short-term contracts.

Fully funded maternity leave can last for 16 weeks, and unpaid leave of three years is

available, but only about one-third of Spanish mothers take up maternity benefits.

Child care services vary from region to region, with some being shorter than the working

day.

Italy has long had a problem with declining birth rates.

The problems include what is perceived to be a bias in the workplace to women who

interrupt their careers to have children, the high fees charged by private nurseries and a

chronic shortage of affordable housing for young people.

The Italian government offers a one-time payment of 1,000 euros (£685) to couples who

have a second child.

Late last year a proposal that mooted paying women not to have abortions gained

popular support in Parliament.

Source: Parenthood Policies in Europe, www.bbc.co.uk

For us to drastically conclude that the Philippines will be overpopulated and we will have

shortages in supply, it is best that we look at statistical evidence first before we allow the

government to use taxpayers’ money on controlling it.

11 | P a g e

Overpopulation and Poverty

Thomas Malthus and the Neo-Malthusians

Another said argument is that overpopulation is the cause for poverty. Polemicists would argue

that this was predicted by Prof. Thomas Malthus of the University of Cambridge.7 He argued

that the world would have to get the population back in line if it were to decrease mortality rates

and prevent famines from ever happening. He assumed that there would be too many mouths to

feed.

However, during the 19th century, there was a boom in the production of goods. Trade expanded

and low-cost agricultural producers like Australia and Argentina joined in. Corn Laws were

abolished, thus making corn products accessible to those belonging to the lower-middle class.

Demographic growth eventually started to go slow.

This theory emerged in the 1970s, and this was the last time food prices went up. There

appeared to be some cause for demographic alarm. Global population rose since the end of

World War II, and infant mortality rates have since plunged down because of modern

medicine.8

However, this sort of worry—in a rather ironic way—boosted agricultural innovations and a

boost in food supply. Four decades ago, the world population peaked at 2% a year. But now, it

has decreased and slowed down at 1.2% annually.9

Now, Neo-Malthusians are asking the question if our generation can truly sustain the ever

growing population. On the other hand, society has already found new ways to address such

skepticism. Sustainable energy sources and the idea of shifting to a low-carbon economy (with

regards to global warming) have been proposed as solutions.10 Like in the 19th century and

during the 70s, the human race has proved itself as brilliant in terms of ingenuity and is not

letting its guard down.11

7 POPULATION, RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT: A Survey of the Debate 8 Malthus, The False Prophet, (The Economist) 9 Ibid. 10 As a matter of fact, a lot of them are already in effect. 11 Ibid.

12 | P a g e

Nevertheless, we have to understand that there is no clear connection of overpopulation with

poverty.12 As a matter of fact population growth is part of the solution in solving the problem of

poverty. I am not being delusional, but I shall state hard-hitting facts.

Is There Any Connection?

First off, we shall define poverty according to the World Bank13:

“… pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions. It includes

low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for

survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor

access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and

insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one's life.”

So poverty is not just having less cash or fewer possessions than people around you—that’s

relative poverty. Real poverty is the lack of dignity and quality of life.

Poverty is usually prominent in nations with few or flawed infrastructures. To build

infrastructures, densely populated communities are needed. The poorest nation according to the

World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the CIA World Factbook is the

Democratic Republic of the Congo. Let us compare Congo with a highly developed nation such

as Luxembourg, in the table below.

Country Land Area14 Population Density (per square mile)15

GDP (PPP) per capita16

Congo, Democratic Republic of the

68,692,542 75 328

Luxembourg 502,207 502 81,383 Table 2

If one can observe the figures, there are only quite a few people in Congo per square mile.

Considering that a prosperous community needs a lot of people to sustain it, Congo barely

makes the cut—add to that, political oppression and war.

12 According to Simon Kuznets, a renowned economist 13 World Bank on Poverty 14 CIA Data 15 Ibid. 16 IMF Data

13 | P a g e

A Crowded Community

The World Bank asserts that people who actually move to [crowded] urban areas have a higher

chance of escaping poverty than those who remain in the countryside (contrary to what I used to

believe in—although this would most likely refer to rural communities with low population

density).

... the urbanization process has played an important role in poverty reduction by

providing new opportunities for migrants and through the second-round impact on

those who stay in rural areas.

Source: Urban Poverty: A Global View by Janet Baker (World Bank Group)

Contrary to popular belief, the individual is not the basis of civilization. An individual cannot be

self-reliant and cannot be self-sustaining. For an individual to escape poverty, they need other

human beings. An employee cannot be and employee without an employer. A laborer cannot be

without a contractor. A maid-servant cannot be without an amo.

During the prehistoric era, early Homo sapiens were few in numbers. They were scattered and

they barely had communities. They would often hunt by themselves—sometimes in groups. As

time progressed, these Homo sapiens began forming communities. They learned the art of trade

and production—they went to war with the wit and cunning only a large community could come

up with. As the population grew, the technology also advanced, up to the post-modern era,

where we belong.

This does not mean that population growth per se improves the standard of living in a particular

community. It is also a matter of human beings in a larger community working together to

further enhance their standard of living. Generally, a certain community would have

bureaucracies.17 To establish such, a good number of people with expertise in different fields are

needed.

We also have to take into consideration that the standard of living has improved as time went

by—and as populations rose. A paper by Joyce Burnette and Joel Mokyr entitled “The Standard

of Living Through The Ages18” using statistical evidence proved the connection between

17 An administrative system created for the purpose of doing things efficiently 18The paper is in the book, “The State of Humanity” by Julian Simon

14 | P a g e

demographic growth and standard of living—that growth in population aids in causing a higher

standards.

Now, we go back to the Philippines. We can read in a previous issue of the Asian Economic

Bulletin a journal entry which may turn the heads of those who assume that the increasing

population in the country is the cause of poverty.

Nonetheless, the study finds that there is bidirectional Granger causality19 between

population and economic growth for Japan, Korea, and Thailand. For China, Singapore,

and the Philippines, population is found to Granger cause economic growth and not vice

versa.

Source: The Relationship Between Population and Economic Growth in Asian Economies by Tsen, Wong

Hock, ASEAN Economic Bulletin Vol. 22 No. 3, December 2005

So that’s it—our population is crucial in fostering economic growth. Why would we want to

control the population?

The Other Side of the Coin

Now to move on with the paradox—Campbell R. McConnell, Stanley L. Brue and Sean M. Flynn

stated that the world population is decreasing as fertility rates have become quite low, and as

such, the demand for resources is decreasing.

In connection to the theories presented in the previous section—where we found out that the

increasing population’s effect was a higher probability of forming communities to raise the

standards of living—we are also experiencing an increase in the standards of living as birthrates

are rapidly falling.20

“… higher living standards have not produced higher birthrates. In fact, just the opposite

has happened. Higher standards of living are associated with lower birthrates. Birthrates

are falling rapidly throughout the worlds and the majority of the world’s population is

[Thanks to http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ for giving the resources and information] 19 The Granger causality test is a statistical hypothesis test for determining whether one time series is useful in forecasting another. 20 As stated, the growth of population does not necessarily raise the standards of living, but increases the probability that communities may be formed—which in itself would raise the standards of living.

15 | P a g e

now living in countries that have birthrates that are lower than the replacement rate

necessary to keep their respective populations from falling over time.”

“Worldwide, the precipitous fall of birthrates means that many demographers (scientists

who study human population) now expect the world’s population to reach a peak of 9

billion people or fewer sometime around the middle of this century before beginning to

fall, perhaps quite rapidly.”

Source: Economics, 18th Edition by McConnell, Brue and Flynn

So, going back to the population pyramid, it appears that the predictions of the US Bureau of

Census on the age-sex distribution are accurate—in a way—world population will continue to fall

at the middle of the century (and it is falling now). The Philippines is no exception.

Insufficient Supplies?

The Economist magazine implies that the commodity supplies have increased faster than the

commodity demands.

The chart represents the decrease in prices of

commodity supplies. The principle is that since

supplies are bountiful, firms will sell them at a lower

price. However, if supplies are scarce, firms will sell

them at a higher price.

This proves that there are enough supplies for

everyone’s wants and needs, and we do not need to

worry. As it turns out, supply is not decreasing anytime

soon.

Add to that the decreasing fertility rates of various highly-developed countries, most especially

in Europe.

But the question remains: If we have enough supplies for the demands of the population, why

are there people starving in countries like those in Africa?

Figure 9 (The Economist magazine, UK)

16 | P a g e

Here are some of the reasons:

Wars, crimes and political instability

o About $18 billion US a year has been drained from Africa by nearly two dozen

wars in recent decades

o Literally thousands of hospitals, schools and roads could have been built

Third world debt

o Zambia spends 40% of its national budget paying off debts to the World Bank

and the IMF

Land rights and ownership problems

Sources: Wars cost Africa $18 billion US a year: report (CBC News)

Mama Africa: What Causes Poverty?

Sparking a Savings Revolution (New York Times)

So resources and supplies are most likely not distributed well to feed the population of

underdeveloped economies because of the above reasons.

Energy Problems: The Focus on Oil

People fear that the world may run out of oil, thinking that we would run out of energy.

However, we would not run out of energy—we’d only run out of a cheap source.21

Below is a chart showing the percentage of energy generated using various energy sources:

Figure 8 (Global Status Report 2006)

21 Economics 18th Edition by McConnell, Brue and Flynn

37%

25%

23%

6%4%

3%

1% 1% 0% 0%

Sources of EnergyOil

Coal

Gas

Nuclear

Biomass

Hydro

Solar Heat

Wind

17 | P a g e

Consumers are obsessed with oil. In economic terms, the demand for oil is considered to be

inelastic. Because of lack of substitutes, consumers will continue to buy the product no matter

how high the price.22

But the demand for oil and energy in general is actually elastic. What makes it presumably

inelastic is merely our obsession with it.

Energy use per capita stopped growing in the 70s—which means that we are using the same

amount of energy as we did back then. The truth is that as prices go up, the demand for oil goes

down and thus consumers—although they have to be aware of it—would look for alternative

sources of energy.23 This is what we call substitution effect. An increase in the relative

expensiveness of a commodity reduces the consumer’s demand, in favor of another similar

commodity. This also means that we would not run out of energy source—we will just run out of

a cheap source of energy.

So, are we really running out of resources?

The price of oil per barrel is currently at $99.3424 (₱4,284.5). At $80 (₱3448) per barrel of crude

oil, biodiesel would become economically viable. On the other hand, ethanol fuel from corn oil

would be economically viable when crude oil is at $60 (₱2586). Shale oil would be a good

alternative if oil was at $50 (₱2115) per barrel, and Brazilian sugar-cane-based ethanol would be

a good substitute if oil was at $40 (₱1724) per barrel.25 All of them are already economically

viable, as a matter of fact.

On another note, new technologies have been developed to turn carcasses of dead animals into

oil in just two hours. 270 tons of carcasses could be converted into 500 barrels of oil. Imagine if

we could get our hands on this sort of technology.26

Hence, oil is no longer a cheap source of energy and in the near-future; consumers would

eventually turn to alternatives, as they could no longer afford crude oil—if the national budget

22 Irwin Kellner, Market Watch 23 Ibid. 24 WTI Crude Oil, Oil-Price.net 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.

18 | P a g e

would allow (ahem), and if patent laws were stronger and anti-trust laws were present.27 The

assumption that we would run out of oil in the future because of the growing population fails, as

with the premises above.

PART I: CONCLUSION I could tackle more on the issue of socialized healthcare, demographic growth and the scarcity of

goods—I could even tackle the issue of natural resources, but however, it would be best if the

readers would find out for themselves and do their research.

27 Which reminds me of that Filipino inventor of a car which was fuelled by water. What happened to him?

19 | P a g e

PART II

The Connection between the Sexual Revolution and the

Degradation of Families

The Sexual Revolution

The first topic we are to tackle is the sexual revolution of the late 1960s. These were changes in

sexual attitudes during the time. Sexual intercourse outside the boundaries of [heterosexual]

marriage became more acceptable, and the number of men and women who had sexual

intercourse prior to marriage has increased. One might wonder, “Who cares? It’s their lives

anyway—they should be free to do so.”

We shall look at facts and theories on how the sexual revolution affected families not only in

America, but throughout the world.

George Akerlof and Janet Yellen

In 1996, George A. Akerlof28 together with Janet L. Yellen29 posted an article entitled “Why Kids

Have Kids” with the subtitle, “Don’t Blame Welfare. Blame Technology Shock.”

Does welfare spawn out-of-wedlock babies? The architects of the recently passed welfare

reform believe it does. They hope that curbing payments for additional children and

enforcing parental work requirements will reverse the 25-year trend that has brought

large numbers of unmarried mothers onto the welfare rolls.

… In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to

single mothers. By 1990, the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants and 18

percent for whites. Every year, about 1 million more children are born into fatherless

families, at an enormously increased risk of growing up in poverty.

… Before 1970, the stigma of unwed motherhood was so great that most women would

only engage in sexual activity if it came with a promise of marriage in the event of 28 George Arthur Akerlof is an American economist and Koshland Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. He won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics. 29 Janet Louise Yellen is an American economist and professor, who is currently the Vice Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

20 | P a g e

pregnancy. Men were willing to make (and keep) that promise, for they knew that even if

they left one woman, they would be unlikely to find another who would not make the

same demand. In the 1970s, women who were willing to get an abortion, or who used

contraception reliably, no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a

promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who found abortion

unacceptable, or who were unreliable in their contraceptive use, found themselves

pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations as well. These women feared,

correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners.

By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution

has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.30

Source: Why Kids Have Kids by George A. Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen, Slate Magazine (1996)

These incidents happened following the sexual revolution. The solutions to solve the problem of

unwanted or early pregnancies were contraceptive use and access to abortion. Suddenly,

individuals experienced a sort of “technology shock.” Under the mindset that they would

experience free sex, men and women were engaging in sexual intercourse and the number of

people who engaged in such grew at a very rapid rate.

Akerlof contended that the increase in access to abortion and contraception has —as a matter of

fact—failed to suppress the incidence of out-of-wedlock child bearing, but has actually worked to

increase it.

Furthermore, the rate of men not marrying a woman because no promise of marriage was given

if the woman were conceive a child has also increased, leading to more and more cases of single-

parenthood or an increase in the cases of abortions.

The Importance of the Family

While the facts stated above would most likely be used in the normative judgment of things, we

are to state positive judgments, and we are to start with the family.

30 Although Akerlof and Yellen were talking about black men and women, they still make a compelling point on how “Reproductive Technology Shock” could shake the foundations of the Filipino family.

21 | P a g e

John C. Medaille contended that the family is the basic unit of civilization.31.Solidarity starts

with the family as the basic unit. No individual is self-sufficient, as we have discussed in Part I

in the Overpopulation and Poverty section. An infant born would need the family for its needs

to be fulfilled. All economic, political and social activity is built around the family and serves its

needs. And in relation to the Overpopulation and Poverty section in Part I, a particular

community usually consists of families, who in turn would give contributions for the welfare of

society. The community relies on the wellness of the family. In turn, the family would also rely

on the wellness of community. If families aren’t functioning well, it will lead to problems in the

community.

But single-parent families are still families, right? Yes, although not a complete one. And it has a

lot of disadvantages, especially for women.

Consider this:

As many single-parent households are female-headed, their economic burden is much

greater than that of a single-father family. This issue results from the fact that single

women typically do not earn the same income as a single man; thus, there is a

consequent economic struggle not experienced in the single-father household.

An offshoot of this economic struggle is the balance of work and family duties. Single

mothers often must work overtime shifts to compensate for the low salaries, thus taking

time away from their children and other domestic chores. This results in a child that is

home alone, without adult supervision, or placed in a daycare service for up to 8-10

hours per day. Government subsidized daycare is not yet a realized dream, and many

single mothers pay large fees for this service.

Source: Sociology of Families by David M. Newman and Liz Grauerholz, Second Edition

We have discussed in the first part regarding Milton Friedman on socialized healthcare. While

government subsidized daycare may not be the same as healthcare, it will most likely cause the

same problems. It is not a viable solution. While giving benefits and compensation is good in

itself, the increasing costs of giving subsidies to these single-parent families will eventually

cause burden upon taxpayers, as with the widespread use of birth control methods (according to

31 Toward A Truly Free Market by John C. Medaille

22 | P a g e

Akerlof and Yellen) would lead to increasing cases of single-parenthood. Most of those involved

are women. While the intention of arming women with birth control methods may seem viable,

Akerlof disproves this, as above.

Single parents would find it hard to work, pay taxes and contribute to the community as the

focus of these single parents rests upon their incomplete families. The basic unit of civilization

would be incomplete, and if cases like these were to increase, it would most likely cause a

general ruckus which would lead to a plummet in economic growth, not to mention under-

replacement of fertility rates, as single parents would most likely have only one child.

The question is, why would we want to enforce something which has been proven by George

Akerlof and Janet Yellen to not work, and would actually cause more problems than it would

hope to solve? This question still baffles me and I wonder what the pro-RH people would have to

say.

PART II CONCLUSION Much has been said about the sexual revolution, the effects of contraceptive use and abortion

and the importance of the family. They are all interconnected in a chain of events. While some

would contend that these issues suffer from the fallacy of slippery slope, much of these cases

have happened in highly-developed countries.

I could discuss more, like on how birth control pills have carcinogenic properties32 or how

condom use has not effectively suppressed the incidence of STDs33 (which are common

arguments by those who oppose the RH bill), but I would rather leave it at that.

32 Birth control pills increase cancer risks (released by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D) 33 Comparing the Philippines with Thailand with laws enforcing 100% condom use (considering that during the 70s, the rates of STDs of both countries were the same), the latter surpasses the Philippines today—with over 700,000 cases.

©MMXI Jared Dale “Ennegrecido” Combista

EPILOGUE While I have devoted my time doing my research on what good the RH bill is, I am rather

convinced that we don’t need it—or it needs to be revised. While liberals, “free-thinkers” and

secularists would rely on their emotions in their pursuit of enforcing the bill, I leave it to their

judgment of things and I pray that they take into consideration positive facts surrounding the

proposed bill.

I know that generally their intentions are good, but can couples (or those who wish to use them,

not endorsing the use of contraceptives, by the way) really not afford to buy them?

However, some have used the bill as a reason to attack the Catholic Church, all in the name of

their unbridled hatred for the institution. I pray that these blasphemies may be washed away.

I have provided factual evidence—which may be argued—but whatever the results may be, I

leave it to God, and may this paper of mine soften the hearts of those of have hardened theirs.

Utinam dicere veritatem, et aliud.