Health has taken strides in filling the gap left by the local government unit, I find it very disturbing that an LGU, particularly the Sorsogon City, has made itself a barrier to women’s access to the whole range of contraceptives and to services that are supposed to be readily available. This ‘disregard’ we have also seen in the TRO imposed on Implanon. We have seen how women who favored Implanon were affected by the TRO, and were forced to resort to other methods despite their preference for Implanon. We have likewise seen how government health workers themselves are prevented from dispensing available supplies due to the prohibition. The third ‘D’ is disinformation. There are many factors why one develops cancer. In Sorsogon City there is direct campaign connecting cancer to artificial contraceptives. There is disinformation that includes public announcements and different media. As CHR we see the need to correct, address, and bring to attention of duty bearers these rampant ‘disinformaiton’/ ‘misinformation’ as they directly affect women and couples who are considering artificial family planning methods. When women are deprived of correct information on reproductive health and rights, there is also a violation of women’s rights. The fourth ‘D’ is familial, societal, and government dynamics that influence and impact on the enjoyment of reproductive health rights. These dynamics can either create an enabling environment or act as barriers to women’s access to and enjoyment of reproductive health services. We have observed for instance that the implementation of the RH law is largely uneven, and largely dependent on the political will and support of local government units. We have also observed that our culture sometimes bars us from the attainment and enjoyment of our rights and sometimes they actually clash with human rights principles. In some instances, policy measures supposedly intended to protect women end up further discriminating them. Specifically, the Commission’s National Inquiry has documented the trend of penalizing and levying fines on women and families who choose home birthing through the passage of provincial, municipal or city ordinances. While the Commission is aware of the good intentions of these ordinances, while we see the importance of safe deliveries, there are also clashes with the beliefs of some indigenous peoples and adverse effects to women from geographically isolated areas without access to facilities. These are dynamics which affect enjoyment of RH services and which were discussed during the Inquiry. In some cases, we have documented good models including the provision of 4