Maternal Healthcare and funding for Abortions

[Keepitsimple]

Hillary Clinton sanctimoniously criticized Canada for not including abortion funding as part of the Conservative Party's Global Maternal Health initiative. Lately, the media have been all over the issue with most claiming that Canada is offside with G8 countries. Well, the last I checked, the US carried a lot of influence at the G8 - and it bears notice that Hillary Clinton is not the President. Obama's recent Health Reform bill was only able to pass after inserting a pledge not to provide Federal funding for abortions. Poll after poll has shown that Americans overwhelmingly reject Federal funds going to abortion services. So where does Clinton get off chastising Canada when Americans don't support it in their own country?

One group of crucial representatives, anti-abortion Democrats, came aboard at the last minute after Mr. Obama promised to issue an executive order "to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services."

Link: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?scp=3&sq=health%20reform%20abortion&st=cse

Edited April 28, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[myata]

She is absolutely correct. Abortion is absolutely legal in this country, and there's no rational reason to use different policy abroad. Of course, wary of exhibiting their outdated socially conservative mentality openly, Harper's conservatives are again following the path of vague insinuations and kicking it (the right to abortion, i.e reproductive freedom) behind closed doors and beyond our borders. Everybody must already know this hallmark pattern quite well, as demonstrated by earlier episodes with Kyoto, gun registry, death penalty and so on.

Why are they doing it? Maybe, to pull in the notion that something isn't right with that fundamental right? Perhaps as a safer test ground to see if they could attempt to pull some restrictions to this right here as well? All in all it clearly shows that fears of hidden agenda behind modern facade of CPC can be more than just unsubstantiated fears.

[scribblet]

I doubt that they were testing anything, maybe they just feel that the money, repulsive as it may be, might be better spent on medical care and nutrition, (you know – actual food ) medical training, sanitation and drug supplies rather than fund abortions, or maybe that’s better than a well fed child. Surely with medical care, contraceptives and family planning education, the need for abortions will be less.

The women we are talking about don’t care about the ‘right to choose’ Or various nuanced concerns or what someone elses’s ideology says about their health, they are not western women having numerous options to consider, I kind of think that their main concern is food and medical aid. The U.S. has no reason to be outraged as they avoid funding abortions at home so cannot repudiate us for not wanting to abort as many third-world kids as possible. The optics aren’t good on that one.

I’d also bet that even though western women want pro choice for themselves, do you think that Canadians actually believe that abortions for these poverty stricken women are some how going to magically cure their problems !! I’d bet that clean drinking water, basic food and medical care would be what most of us envision as helping these women.

[Moonbox]

I’d also bet that even though western women want pro choice for themselves, do you think that Canadians actually believe that abortions for these poverty stricken women are some how going to magically cure their problems !! I’d bet that clean drinking water, basic food and medical care would be what most of us envision as helping these women.

Abortion is a last resort even here in Canada. It's generally an "oh shit" reaction to a mistake. Maybe you got too drunk to make a good decision, maybe the condom broke...whatever. In the third world, contraception and birth control are so far behind that abortion would not do nothing to actually fix the problem. People would just get pregnant over and over.

[Sir Bandelot]

I thought this had something to do with third world countries, like Africa. Or wherever there are horrific tribal wars and women get raped by soldiers.

[scribblet]

I thought this had something to do with third world countries, like Africa. Or wherever there are horrific tribal wars and women get raped by soldiers.

I guess it could be, but I thought it was more along the lines of education and health care for the general population.

[M.Dancer]

I thought this had something to do with third world countries, like Africa. Or wherever there are horrific tribal wars and women get raped by soldiers.

A worthwhile initive, to bring care to those women. And practically impossible too.

[Topaz]

Today there was a heated debate back and forth in the House and the Tories have shot themselves in the foot in this one. The saying "Do as I say and not as I do" comes to mind. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+motherhood+issue+backfires+triggers+secret+agenda+fears+abortion/2959850/story.html

[M.Dancer]

Today there was a heated debate back and forth in the House and the Tories have shot themselves in the foot in this one. The saying "Do as I say and not as I do" comes to mind. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+motherhood+issue+backfires+triggers+secret+agenda+fears+abortion/2959850/story.html

Even as the Gordon Brown government in Britain and the Barack Obama administration in the U.S. have let it be known that they consider family planning and access to safe abortion services to be part of any maternal health initiative,

If Obama considers it important, I await his pledge to fund it.

[scribblet]

If Obama considers it important, I await his pledge to fund it.

Touche

[Sir Bandelot]

I guess it could be, but I thought it was more along the lines of education and health care for the general population.

It should also be noted that most reasonable people would probably consider abortion services in Africa, in particular, to be defensible in view of the fact that sexual violence and rape are such a common occurrence in some countries on that continent.

How can Canada justify dictating policy in the rest of the world that it does not enforce at home?

Guess again, scriblit

Edited April 28, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[normanchateau]

If Obama considers it important, I await his pledge to fund it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-first-act-taxpayer-money-to-fund-abortions-of-black-babies.html

[scribblet]

It should also be noted that most reasonable people would probably consider abortion services in Africa, in particular, to be defensible in view of the fact that sexual violence and rape are such a common occurrence in some countries on that continent.

How can Canada justify dictating policy in the rest of the world that it does not enforce at home?

Guess again, scriblit

Guess what again?

In many if not most third world countries abortion is illegal and it's controversial everywhere. Were we to fund it in such countries we would be introducing that debate into every country we went with the

result that many countries wouldn't participate in the program at all.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-first-act-taxpayer-money-to-fund-abortions-of-black-babies.html

While I find a story from over a year ago in a whacknut web site amusing....the story is not only old, it is wrong.

I eagely await Obama's pledge.

[myata]

In many if not most third world countries abortion is illegal and it's controversial everywhere.

It's not "controversial" in Canada, no. It's absolutely, 100% legal. Get out of your cave. And suggest the same to our honourable PM, too.

[Argus]

I think Harper's initial out-of-the-blue pledge to try to do something about maternal health care in the third world was a dumb appeal to women voters, a misguided attempt at showing him as a "caring and concerned" man who wants to help the downtrodden. As I've said before, the Conservative party has had the most disastrously incompetent and clueless communications strategy in the history of western politics for decades now, with no signs of a change in sight. The maternal health care stategy was just such a bloody obviously phoney appeal to women that it's eye rollingly dumb.

Even so, the brutal cynicism of the Liberals and the opposition here is even more contemptable.

Liberal Staffer: "The Tories are going to try and help maternal health care in the third world!"

2nd Liberal Staffer: "Oh no! We have to stop it!"

Ignatieff: "Damn! It might make him look good. How do we sabotage it!?

Naive young intern who doesn't know any better: "But whatever the reason behind it won't such an intitiative help desperately poor third world women?"

Ignatieff: "Get out of my party!"

Liberal Staffer: "Fool! Moron! We don't want your kind around here!"

[scribblet]

It's not "controversial" in Canada, no. It's absolutely, 100% legal. Get out of your cave. And suggest the same to our honourable PM, too.

It is still controversial in Canada, the very reason the Liberals took Frank Graves at his word about getting busy making wedges.

If you look back you'll see that I am pro-choice, but in many 3rd world countries it is illegal, and neither is it out of step with the U.N. although the Liberals and media try frame it that way.

It is logical to concentrate on feeding and educating the people first, with education on family planning and contraception, there will be less of a need for abortion - hopefully.

The United Nations Population Fund - paragraph 8.25 states:

“In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. All Governments and relevant intergovernmental and non governmental organizations are urged to strengthen their commitment to women’s health, to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion as a major public health concern and to reduce the recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family planning services. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority and all attempts should be made to eliminate the need for abortion. Women who have unwanted pregnancies should have ready access to reliable information and compassionate counselling. Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process. In circumstances in which abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe. In all cases women should have access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion. Post abortion counselling, education and family planning services should be offered promptly which will also help to avoid repeat abortions.”

and-----

Does the UN provide funding for abortion?

No. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the main United Nations body involved in population issues, does not support or promote abortion in any country, nor does it provide assistance for abortion services or abortion-related equipment and supplies. It strictly abides by the Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which states that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning”. UNFPA works to prevent abortion through family planning, and helps countries to provide services for women suffering from the complications of unsafe abortions.

[myata]

Liberal Staffer: "The Tories are going to try and help maternal health care in the third world!"

2nd Liberal Staffer: "Oh no! We have to stop it!"

Ignatieff: "Damn! It might make him look good. How do we sabotage it!?

Naive young intern who doesn't know any better: "But whatever the reason behind it won't such an intitiative help desperately poor third world women?"

Ignatieff: "Get out of my party!"

Liberal Staffer: "Fool! Moron! We don't want your kind around here!"

Wow, what a creative fantasy! You're really burying your talent here (could get you a Booker or something))

Back to the reality world, of course only Harper's folks could go as far as, being unable to roll back social developments in our country, kick them under the table, picking and choosing policies not according to rational analysis, not to our countries own standards and practices, but only by their ideological preferences. Making us all here look stupid or hypocritical to the core (yeah we allow it here; no, it's not good for you) courtesy of you know who.

Harper promised not to reopen this debate, but he's doing exactly that. That the arena is a policy for ourside our borders shouldn't fool anybody, it's only a distraction, a way to obscure matters for the time being.

[myata]

It is still controversial in Canada, the very reason the Liberals took Frank Graves at his word about getting busy making wedges.

"Controversial" only as far ideological views of socially cave age crowd go. It's no more "controversial" than wearing miniskirt or voting or having a gay friend. Check which century it is, out there.

If you look back you'll see that I am pro-choice, but in many 3rd world countries it is illegal, and neither is it out of step with the U.N. although the Liberals and media try frame it that way.

I'm sure that nothing illegal is being imposed on anybody. However access to safe and affordable abortions is one of instruments to support women's freedom not in the least freedom from unwanted pregnancies. And in some places it could be important instrument because of so many reasons (access to contraception, education about it, conflicts and violence etc), so limiting or denying it on purely ideological grounds compromises the whole idea of this project.

It is logical to concentrate on feeding and educating the people first, with education on family planning and contraception, there will be less of a need for abortion - hopefully.

Yeagh right, you simply know what is good for them, how they should behave and what they should do. Isn't it the whole idea of social conservatism?

[scribblet]

Yeagh right, you simply know what is good for them, how they should behave and what they should do. Isn't it the whole idea of social conservatism?

Not that I'm aware of, not being ' social conservative' I wouldn't really know, but it's not my understanding of the term.

However, the issue is of course a political wedge issue, as abortion isn't the main object of funding,but is being used and blown out of proportion by the opposition to score political points.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_what_countries_is_abortion_illegal

Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life.

South America:

Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,

Sub-Saharan Africa:

Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, C�te d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.

Middle East and North Africa:

Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan ®, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Asia and Pacific:

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.

Europe:

Ireland, Malta.

[myata]

Not that I'm aware of, not being ' social conservative' I wouldn't really know, but it's not my understanding of the term.

But what else could it be? I know what is good for you, and my opinion should prevail over your freedom, private choice, morals, sexual preferences, and so on.

How could one credibly claim to support freedom here and deny it somewhere else for yet unexplained (intelligently) reason?

No, the only logical explanation is that they despise, hate and seek to abolish that freedom. And being unable to achieve it here and now, they are doing it somewhere else instead. As a first step.

However, the issue is of course a political wedge issue, as abortion isn't the main object of funding,but is being used and blown out of proportion by the opposition to score political points.

Nothing "wedgy" there other than in socially conservative mind. Abortion is legal in Canada and it should be supported as one choice in the array of many to uphold women's freedom where it can be done legally.

But no, we want to divide basic and fundamental freedoms into those we like and those we don't and that is indeed a wedge issue. A wedge between free and open future and cave age past where shaman, priest or moral leader would rule on validity of individual's private choices.

[scribblet]

But what else could it be? I know what is good for you, and my opinion should prevail over your freedom, private choice, morals, sexual preferences, and so on.

How could one credibly claim to support freedom here and deny it somewhere else for yet unexplained (intelligently) reason?

No, the only logical explanation is that they despise, hate and seek to abolish that freedom. And being unable to achieve it here and now, they are doing it somewhere else instead. As a first step.

====

Obviously I disagree with that. The reason about 50% of the Canadian public disagree with abortion is because they see it as murder, as that of destroying a life therefore it is more important to save that life than giving a woman freedom of choice - choice they see as snuffing out a life. That's a big argument and not one we will likely ever resolve to everyone's satisfaction, we can try and strike a balance by limiting abortion to late term, one I can agree with - IMO 24 weeks maybe 20, but it wouldn't satisfy the right to life crowd.

Having said that, it is obviously a wedge issue, one promoted by the opposition, when really IMO it's hard to believe that Canadian electors and taxpayers are up in arms over a generous foreign aid package that doesn't include abortion funding. One would think that reasonable thinking people would be happy with such largesse even if it is only for food and education.

In fact, I'd say that this wouldn't even be an issue if the opposition weren't promoting it in order to score political points.

Personally, if I were inclined, I'd be on the offensive asking the Liberals why they are so anxious to kill so many kids in Africa.

Never mind, over the last 12 months, Ignatieff and company received $7.3 millions in taxpayer funds to promote sending off much more taxpayer money to third world sewers to promote their wedge issues. Maybe they would be better off using that 7.3 million for food, education and birth control.

Edited April 29, 2010 by scriblett

[myata]

Obviously I disagree with that. The reason about 50% of the Canadian public disagree with abortion is because they see it as murder,

I'm not going to be drawn into another abortion discussion. Somebody may see cutting of nails as "murder"; or god-forbid, reading "inappropriate" book could be a "murder" too (in somebody's inflamed mind). There's no lack of bizzare beliefs and ideas of which you here represent just one.

These ideas have nothing to do with the realities of modern times (while we care to keep them) where individuals have full and absolute rigths over their minds and bodies never mind goodwishers of all kinds jumping around with their unasked for moral preachings and blessings.

Just as little as CPC behind of scene politicking is. You want to roll back changes, get us back to the days woman couldn't get out without a man without being morally accused of something? Sure go ahead, bring it on. Just don't hide behind Friday night releases and offshore policies..

Having said that, it is obviously a wedge issue, one promoted by the opposition, when really IMO it's hard to believe that Canadian electors and taxpayers are up in arms over a generous foreign aid package that doesn't include abortion funding.

You know what, as you keep saying that over and over, I can't but assume that you're here to speak on behalf of them, "Canadian electors". Because other than yourself here and a few individuals with posters I see once in a while driving by local hospital, I fail to notice Canadian electors coming in those "up in arms". Could it be that Canadian electors (majority of them) treat it as it is, i.e. a matter of personal choice, on which everybody can have their own private opinion but is a bad taste to advise to others, especially if advice is unasked for? And respecting private choices of their own fellow citizens as Canadian electors mostly do, they no doubt see no reason to do differently with respect to people in other countries? Other than of course, those some of Canadian electors who simply can't get by without dictating other people what to do in their private lives.

One would think that reasonable thinking people would be happy with such largesse even if it is only for food and education.

I already explained that reproductive freedom is a fundamental human right and in some circumstances abortion could be one of the few means available to uphold it. It's not about idological moralising but what could be done in practice. Food and education right, when family ends up with more children it can feed, and woman spends half of her life carrying unwanted pregnancies. But this is what Socially Conservative gifts are so often reduced to, it starts nice and generous and ends in useless bs.

Personally, if I were inclined, I'd be on the offensive asking the Liberals why they are so anxious to kill so many kids in Africa.

You really are "pro choice" aren't ya? Calling someone a "killer" for exercising their personal freedom (and without slightest rational reason for that too)?

[Muddy]

I thought this had something to do with third world countries, like Africa. Or wherever there are horrific tribal wars and women get raped by soldiers.

Soldiers don`t rape women. Thugs dressed as soldiers rape women. Real Soldiers defend the vulnerable.

[Argus]

Harper promised not to reopen this debate, but he's doing exactly that. That the arena is a policy for ourside our borders shouldn't fool anybody, it's only a distraction, a way to obscure matters for the time being.

Are you really this gullible? Ignatieff has been desperately trying to re-open the abortion debate since he became leader of the Liberal Party. His raising this as an issue last year was as obvious and crass an effort at appealing to wedge voters as Harper suddenly discovering "maternal health". Now he's trying to do it again with this foreign maternal health nonsense. It's not being done because he gives a damn about maternal health or abortion. It's being done because the Liberals see it as a way to paint the Tories as anti-female in some eyes, and because they are elbowing the NDP for support among the Left.