The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development; The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and The right of families or family assoc1at1ons to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. In this case, the RH Law, in its not-so-hidden desire to control population growth, contains provisions which tend to wreck the family as a solid social institution. It bars the husband and/or the father from participating in the decision making process regarding their common future progeny. It likewise deprives the parents of their authority over their minor daughter simply because she is already a parent or had suffered a miscarriage. The Family and Spousal Consent Section 23(a) (2) (i) of the RH Law states: The following acts are prohibited: (a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall: ... (2) refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or authorization of the following persons in the following instances: (i) Spousal consent in case of married persons: provided, That in case of disagreement, the decision of the one undergoing the procedures shall prevail. [Emphasis supplied] The above provision refers to reproductive health procedures like tubal litigation and vasectomy which, by their very nature, should require mutual consent and decision between the husband and the wife as they affect issues intimately related to the founding of a family. Section 3, Art. XV of the Constitution espouses that the State shall defend the "right of the spouses to found a family." One person cannot found a family. The right, therefore, is shared by both spouses. In the same Section 3, their right "to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them " is equally recognized. The RH Law cannot be allowed to infringe upon this mutual decision-making. By giving absolute authority to the spouse who would undergo a procedure, and barring the other spouse from participating in the decision would drive a wedge between the husband and wife, possibly result in bitter animosity, and endanger the marriage and the family, all for the sake of reducing the population. This would be a marked departure from the policy of the State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution.241 Decision-making involving a reproductive health procedure is a private matter which belongs to the couple, not just one of them. Any decision they would reach would affect their future as a family because the size of the family or the number of their children significantly