Wednesday, June 1, 2011

No wonder Angsioco hates the Protection of Unborn Bill

An excerpt from that "role model for mothers and women" Rina Jimenez David.

No, there was brutal sarcasm in that.


AS EXPECTED, the real intent of senators behind the filing of the bills on the “Protection of the Unborn Child” has been revealed to be actually an attempt to delay, if not derail, the expected passage of the RH bill.  [How selfish of those senators!  They put the protection of the unborn above the RH Bill!  So shameful!]

Filed by Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Vicente Sotto III, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Ralph Recto and Bong Revilla Jr., the bills would, on the surface, seek an investigation into the efficacy and “modes of action” of oral contraceptives, the IUD and other drugs and devices to determine whether these are “abortifacients,” or cause the expulsion of a fetus. [Oh.  So it does not make this bill more important than the RH Bill?]

But Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) chairperson Elizabeth Angsioco [hag] says the bills are in effect really seeking answers to the question of “When does life begin?” [So?  Any problem with that?] Now this is a question that has been debated for centuries, with no clear conclusion in sight, even by scientists or the medical community[If you hide the truth or do not want to know the truth.  Why don't you read this.]

“Dealing with this question will waste precious time and people’s money because consensus will not be achieved,” Angsioco adds. [Because it will ruin the very foundation of the RH Bill.] “The authors, all known to be against the controversial but widely supported Reproductive Health (RH) bill [huh?  widely supported?  I dare you to a referendum but not with a paid survey.  Let's see whose talking.] said they intend to clarify which methods of family planning are abortifacient. This can easily be ascertained by going through the list of the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines which clearly and separately categorizes contraceptives and abortives. Thus, these hearings are unnecessary.” [I have an interesting discovery about what this woman keeps yapping about.  More about this below.]

* * *

COMMENTING on the motives of the five senators, she notes that “They know that there would be no unity on the issues of when life begins or which contraceptives are abortifacient. They merely want to further delay the sponsorship of the RH bill in the Senate, and this is frustrating.” [And why are you such in a hurry?  Oh, yeah I forgot.  The commission.]

These “unborn bills,” she adds, pit unborn children versus the mothers, a development which is as unsavory as they are cynical. “The provisions clearly protect only the unborn and totally forget about the mothers,” adds Angsioco. [What protection for the mother have you come about?  Angsioco is not even advocating the reform of our health services?  Since when is health care centered between the legs of a person, huh?] If the authors truly want to provide mothers and the unborn “equal protection” as mandated in the Constitution, “they cannot be selective … the rights and welfare of mothers cannot be subsumed under the rights of the unborn.” [This reaaalllyy is brain wracking witch rant!]


I am sooo glad that Elizabeth Angsioco which Rina Jimenez-David quoted about the mentioned about World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. A quick search on the Internet would give you the list.

And there is the section on page 29 of the list about Oral Hormonal Contraceptives.  First on that section is ethinylestradiol + levonorgestrel.  And this drug, over at gives the following description:

This medication is a combination of 2 hormones (an estrogen and a progestin) and is used to prevent pregnancy. It works mainly by preventing the release of an egg (ovulation) during your menstrual cycle. It also can work by making vaginal fluid thicker to help prevent sperm from reaching an egg (fertilization) and by changing the lining of the uterus (womb) to prevent attachment of a fertilized egg. If a fertilized egg does not attach to the uterus, it passes out of the body.

So if a fertilized egg is killed, what do you call that?

Before that, what do you call a fertilized egg?

No wonder you do not want discussions about the real effects of the pill.

No wonder you do not want the Protection of the Unborn Child Bill because deep inside, ANGSIOCO AND JIMENEZ-DAVID, YOU WANT ABORTION!

No comments:

Post a Comment