discussed, the right to be exempt from being obligated to render reproductive health service and modem family planning methods, necessarily includes exemption from being obligated to give reproductive health information and to render reproductive health procedures. The terms "service" and "methods" are broad enough to include the providing of information and the rendering of medical procedures. The same can be said with respect to the contention that the RH Law punishes health care service providers who intentionally withhold, restrict and provide incorrect information regarding reproductive health programs and services. For ready reference, the assailed provision is hereby quoted as follows: SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts are prohibited: (a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall: (1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/ or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medicallysafe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning methods; From its plain meaning, the word "incorrect" here denotes failing to agree with a copy or model or with established rules; inaccurate, faulty; failing to agree with the requirements of duty, morality or propriety; and failing to coincide with the truth. 257 On the other hand, the word "knowingly" means with awareness or deliberateness that is intentional.258 Used together in relation to Section 23(a)(l), they connote a sense of malice and ill motive to mislead or misrepresent the public as to the nature and effect of programs and services on reproductive health. Public health and safety demand that health care service providers give their honest and correct medical information in accordance with what is acceptable in medical practice. While health care service providers are not barred from expressing their own personal opinions regarding the programs and services on reproductive health, their right must be tempered with the need to provide public health and safety. The public deserves no less. 7-Egual Protection The petitioners also claim that the RH Law violates the equal protection clause under the Constitution as it discriminates against the poor because it makes them the primary target of the government program that promotes contraceptive use . They argue that, rather than promoting reproductive health among the poor, the RH Law introduces contraceptives that would effectively reduce the number of the poor. Their bases are the various provisions in the RH Law dealing with the poor, especially those mentioned in the guiding principles259 and definition of terms260 of the law. They add that the exclusion of private educational institutions from the mandatory reproductive health education program imposed by the RH Law renders it unconstitutional. In Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission,261 the Court had the occasion to expound on the concept of equal protection. Thus: