Banning profanity and pregnancy
FIRST, the local government of Baguio City has passed an ordinance penalizing profanity. And now, Pines City Colleges, also located in Baguio City, requires all its female students to undergo pregnancy tests. If the test turns out to be positive, the students are required to drop out of their courses.
The administrators of the school justify this policy by saying that it is to protect the welfare of the student and the child. They argue that being enrolled in medical-related courses is a serious threat to the health of a pregnant woman and the child she carries. It then behooves us to ask if the school also requires all its female teachers and clinical instructors to undergo mandatory pregnancy testing and force them to go on leave when the test turns out to be positive. After all, these teachers would be exposed to the same classroom environment which the school believes to be toxic to any pregnant woman and her unborn child.
The school gives us the impression that the work schedule of nursing students and those enrolled in health-related courses can be stressful, and can jeopardize the health of the young mother and her child. If this is the case, then I wonder if the school is as generous and caring of its employees and administrators whose work schedule may be just as toxic— including perhaps its president, to go on paid maternity leave even during the first trimester of their pregnancies.
Indeed, one can accuse the school of violating the human rights of their female students, except that it can use as an excuse the fact that no one is being forced to enroll there. Hence, if any student disagrees with its policies, they can just transfer to another school. It is also a fact that rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply as restraints on the state and its instrumentalities, and this could not be invoked against private entities. The bill of rights is seen to apply only to individuals vis-a-vis state actions, and are used to shield citizens against governmental abuses.
Thus, the action of the city government of Baguio when it passed an ordinance banning profane utterances may be subject to a legal challenge based on the Bill of Rights, simply because it is an act of a government entity that restricts freedom of expression. It is using public money and resources in implementing an ordinance that has the effect of curtailing a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.
However, some would argue that enrollment in a school is akin to a contract, where the school lays down its policies. Hence, an action may not necessarily be discriminatory if the students have been given prior notice at the time of their entry in the program. This is simply because their free consent is implied when they decided to enroll despite such policy.
Hence, only when it is shown that the administrators of the Pines City Colleges failed to communicate the policy to the female students, either during their entry to the program, or at the beginning of the semester, that it can be questioned as arbitrary and discriminatory. In fact, the court has already ruled that internal policies of private companies, when properly communicated and accepted, cannot be a ground for accusations of discrimination to prosper. The court, for example, ruled that Philippine Airlines did not discriminate against a flight attendant who was fired for being obese simply because she had violated its weight requirements to which she had freely consented because it was written as a rule.
However, even if the Pines City Colleges could not be held liable for violating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it could not use as a defense its right to have its own policies if these are contrary to other laws passed by Congress.
Republic Act 9710, or the Magna Carta for Women, was passed by Congress in 2009. The law explicitly made it illegal to discriminate against women in education, scholarships and training. RA 7910 has outlawed the expulsion, non-readmission, prohibiting enrollment, and other related discrimination of women students due to pregnancy outside of marriage. This is specifically contained in Section 13, letter C of the law which states that “No school shall turn out or refuse admission to a female student solely on account of her having contracted pregnancy outside of marriage during her term in school.”
Hence, the administrators of the Pines City Colleges can be held liable for violating the Magna Carta for Women. The law is clear, and it applies to both public and private educational institutions.
While the provision in the law specifically protects only unmarried pregnant students, it is doubtful if the school can force only its married pregnant students to drop out of their courses. This will be patently illogical, and be politically incorrect, not to mention purely discriminatory against legally married women who want to still further their education and acquire skills. It will go against the spirit and intent of RA 7910.
However, and going beyond legalities, the policy of the Pines City Colleges of forcing its female students to undergo a pregnancy test, and then forcing them to drop out from their courses if they are found pregnant, is obviously not to protect women and the child that they bear. It is simply a forced application of a distorted kind of morality that turns pregnancy, more so those conceived outside marriage, as an anomaly that needs to be penalized. If the purpose is to protect, then the school can simply provide mechanisms for counselling, reduced or modified workload and other interventions.
It can also help if the school be true to its mission of training health caregivers, and begin caring for the health and welfare of its students not by stigmatizing their pregnancy. Making the test optional, and giving the student a choice, by advising them of their options which can include voluntary taking of leave of absence, is a much better approach. Opting for a forced dropping out, regardless of the student’s choice, and impressing on them that pregnancy is a social burden is not the kind of health care that we need to instill on our future nurses and midwives.
Baguio City wanted to clean its air of vitriol, hence it decided to ban cursing within its public spaces. But in doing so, it may have violated the Constitution.
Pines City Colleges, which is located in the same city, wanted to propagate a moral code of conduct among its female students, in the guise of allegedly protecting them and the child they bear. In the end, they may have violated not only a law, but also the rules of logic and science.
One is tempted to ask. Is it the cool, crisp mountain air? Or is it an effect of higher elevations?
The post Banning profanity and pregnancy appeared first on The Manila Times Online.