RH services will 'lead' to better health for women and children, encourage 'ideal' family size - which can be 2 or more.
Which puts a caveat on the the notion that passing the RH Bill will necessarily induce reduction in population growth rates (which, personally, I think is the whole point of passing such a law in a Third World country like the Philippines where every baby born subtracts rather than adds value to the economy).
However (and I might be mistaken in my interpretation here), the following, it seems, are the main pillars of Paul's argument that the RH Bill should not be passed (considering the provisions supposedly contained in it that paves the way for government procurement of contraceptive devices and the dole out of these to the Filipino multitude)...
it basically assumes an optimistic view of cde demographic and the govt system to deliver services
No assurances or guarantees for the uptake of RH prods and services. Ergo, no guarantees for population reduction. Just faith.
My view here is that all laws are framed on the basis of optimistic or idealised presumption that said laws will be abided by and executed properly once they are enacted. Though legislators may take every measure within their capacities to minimise loopholes that can be exploited or ambiguities that can be abused, compliance to these laws fall outside of their scope of concerns.
Whether the public abides by these laws and whether the government agencies tasked with executing these laws apply them in the spirit of what they were originally intended for is more a concern of the Executive and Judicial branches of government.
As such, worrying about whether the RH Bill will be complied with and executed properly is not much a concern now as it is later on when it becomes a matter of enforcement and executive oversight.