Motherhood Steve: Now Boss of Maternal Health $$$

Could there possibly be a more perfect appointment to the job of co-chair of the maternal health panel than Motherhood Steve?

Motherhood Steve, who while trumpeting his maternal health initiative couldn't be bothered to show up at an international conference on women timed to bolster those very efforts. Not only did he not attend as invited with his (poor) wife, he didn't even bother to reply to the invitation.

Motherhood Steve, who initially excluded family planning from said vaunted initiative (and of course excluded abortion too), after a shit-storm of scathing punditry was forced to walk it back a little to show the world he wasn't a total and complete asshole.

Motherhood Steve, who hates all women except for REAL RIGHTWING ones.

Motherhood Steve, whose religion is perceived to be something of a tiny problemo by Third-World, non-Xian women.

The former head of Canada’s aid program in Afghanistan has expressed concern that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s religious beliefs are hampering humanitarian efforts.

Speaking to the Straight from Kabul, Nipa Banerjee noted that Harper is a born-again Christian, and she argued that his religious beliefs could be adversely affecting the Canadian International Development Agency’s efforts to help Afghan women.

“It has been said that reproductive health would not be a part of the government and CIDA’s aid programs,” said Banerjee, who led CIDA’s mission in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006. “And the reproductive-health issue is a major problem in the context of Afghanistan because the maternal mortality rate is very high.”

I could go on about what a fucking great friend of women Stevie Peevie is. But we could just ask his wife about that.

Oh. They aren't living together? Odd.


h/t to 900-ft Jesus.

ADDED: Commenter double nickel called me out on the not living together part. I admit that was lazy not to look harder for a link to the rumours. Here's one.

ADDED AGAIN: ADDED: RH Reality Check takes note: In the Category Of "They Must Be Kidding," the United Nations Puts Stephen Harper in Charge of Accountability of Women's Health.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is anti-choice, tried to eliminate family planning from Canada's international funding for maternal health programs, and generally speaking has adopted global health policies that will further marginalize women and girls.

For some reason, the United Nations took this to mean he would be a great candidate to co-chair a high-level commission to hold countries accountable for spending $40 billion pledged in September to improve women's health.

New 'Motherhood' Steve Worries Fetus Fetishists

Now that Stevie the Spiteful's government has succeeded in stripping 99% of federal grants to that notorious supporter of people who both do and do not right now thanks want to be parents, the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, formerly Planned Parenthood, we learn that there are plans to do the same to International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Back in early November last year, ReformaTory Brad Trost revealed his Christo-Talibanny scheme.

A petition calling for a stop to federal funding of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has been launched by Saskatoon-Humboldt MP Brad Trost.

Trost presented the petition to the House of Commons Monday. IPPF is funded through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and, according to Trost's petition, "promotes the establishment of abortion as an international human right and lobbies aggressively to impose permissive abortion laws on developing nations."

The petition says that the government pledged $18 million to the IPPF over four years and that "the IPPF does not support physician's freedom to practice according to their conscience and/or religious beliefs regarding abortion referral."

According to IPPF's website, the federation promotes sexual and reproductive health rights and provides health services for people in six world regions. Its work is focused in five priority areas: Access to services for marginalized groups, education services for adolescents, advocacy campaigns, HIV-AIDS and abortion services.

Gee, wouldn't the brand-new bestest friend of women, Motherhood Steve, want to support planned parenthood?

Maybe not. It seems Misogynist Steve's morphing into Motherhood Steve isn't going over too well with the Forced Pregnancy Gang.

Abortion Push Feared!

Following Prime Minister Stephen Harper's announcement on Wednesday that Canada will use its influence as president of the G8 this year to promote maternal and child healthcare in the developing world, pro-life leaders are expressing concern that the government has sought the counsel of Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD), a pro-abortion associate of Planned Parenthood.

Pro-life leaders are calling on Canadians to contact the Prime Minister and International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda, and ask them to ensure that the government does not cave in to pressure to push abortion and population control as part of the initiative.

Delish, isn't it? Not only does Morpho-Man have everybody with more than one functioning neuron rolling around on the floor laughing, this totally bogus and transparent stunt may backfire with the Christers.


h/t for the Trost link to my new Facebook friend, Shelley Cooper-Stephenson

Bang for the Buck

A few days ago, there was this story about fetus fetishists being "upset" over funding of morning-after pills under the Maternal Health Initiative. (Note to editors: the word "stupid" is only one character more than "upset" and way more accurate.)

Anti-abortion activists say the federal government has broken its pledge to leave abortion out of its maternal health initiative, just as Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrapped up an international summit Friday with a fresh commitment of $3.5 billion to improve maternal health around the world.

The issue is the morning-after pill, a.k.a. emergency contraception. The morans are still claiming that it is an "abortifacient." It is not. There is no scientific controversy about this.

The morans are simply lying. Again.

But buried in the same article was this bit of info.

International Planned Parenthood notes that of $2.28 billion spent as of March 2014, only 0.55 per cent went to family planning, despite the fact that 222 million women around the world lack access to “a range of modern methods of contraception.”

Back in 2010, when Motherhood Steve was rolling out his plans for the Women of the World, there was a MASSIVE brouhaha over whether any family planning would be funded atall atall. Leave aside abortion. Motherhood Steve wouldn't touch condoms, b.c. pills, diaphragms, implants, etc. etc.

That idiocy blew up real good on him and Canada seemed to relent.

Now we find out that a measly 0.55% is being spent on family planning.

Let's consult the Steve's good buddies at the Gates Foundation, shall we?

However, more than 220 million women in developing countries who don’t want to get pregnant lack access to contraceptives and voluntary family planning information and services. Less than 20 percent of women in Sub-Saharan Africa and barely one-third of women in South Asia use modern contraceptives. In 2012, an estimated 80 million women in developing countries had an unintended pregnancy; of those women, at least one in four resorted to an unsafe abortion.

So, as always, we come back to square one of Abortion Reduction Bingo. Hate abortion? Support contraception. Support all kinds of contraception. Support as much contraception as possible.

And you don't have to hate abortion to support contraception.

Again, from the Gates Foundation, the benefits are huge.

Voluntary family planning is one of the most cost-effective investments a country can make in its future. Every dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars that can be spent on improving health, housing, water, sanitation, and other public services.

If my math (and calculator) are correct, 0.55% of $2.28 billion is just about $12.5 million (or about six junkets to the Middle East for Motherhood Steve and his pals and lackeys).

But multiply that by 6 and we get $75 million to spend on other health needs, water, sanitation etc.

OK, stick with me here. What if we spent a whopping 1% on family planning? Or, hey, let's go crazy and spend 2% on family planning!

That would be amount to $300 million in savings to be put toward other health needs in desperately strapped countries.

That strikes me -- admittedly NOT a trained economist -- as pretty damned good bang for the buck.

Butbutbut, the base would be "upset."

So, screw you, poor women. Who the hell do you think you are, wanting to decide when and how many pregnancies you want or can handle?

Canadian fetus fetishists will decide that for you.

What Do (Third World) Women Want? Part 2

Let's do some more listening to what women in the Third World want.

In Burkina Faso, there is new commitment to improving obstetric care and family planning.

As many as six women die every day in the West African country Burkina Faso as a result of pregnancy or childbirth. Burkina Faso is one of the poorest countries in the world, and human rights group, Amnesty International, says it is the country's poor, rural women whose lives are most in danger.

Amnesty International issued a report last month that pointed to poverty and shortages of supplies and trained medical staff as well as corruption and gender discrimination as the underlying causes for high rates of maternal death in Burkina Faso.

A 2005 law gives Burkinabé women the right to choose how many children they will have and when they will have them, and government subsidies introduced in 2006 sharply reduced the cost of childbirth.

But Amnesty International found that many women do not know about their right to family planning and that poorly paid medical personnel continue to ask for informal payments with impunity.

(snip)

The Burkinabé government also committed Friday to lifting financial barriers to family planning services, which Amnesty International says can save lives by preventing unwanted pregnancies, pregnancies that are too close together and unsafe, illegal abortions.

Wiki says it is 60% Muslim but calls it 'ethnically integrated, secular'. So, at least they don't have civil war and ethnic strife to deal with.

They're trying to raise the status of women there, but still need help.

Amnesty International has also encouraged international donors to continue their support of the Burkinabé government in ensuring the availability and accessibility of adequate reproductive care for women in Burkina Faso.

Now, let's go to Afghanistan where Motherhood Steve's government is more anti-choice than the mullahs.

Some mullahs in Afghanistan are distributing condoms. Others are quoting the Quran to encourage longer breaks between births. Health experts say contraception is starting to catch on in a country where one in eight women dies during pregnancy.

Afghanistan has one of the world's highest fertility rates, averaging more than six babies per woman despite years of war and a severe lack of medical care. Awareness of, and access to, contraceptives remains low among many couples, with UNICEF estimating 10 percent of women using some form of birth control.

But use of the pill, condoms and injected forms of birth control rose to 27 percent over eight months in three rural areas — up to half the woman in one area — once the benefits were explained one-on-one by health workers, according to the report published Monday in Bulletin, the World Health Organization's journal.

Canada's goal in Afghanistan is allll about the girls and women, right?

Just not the contraception, family planning, and access to safe abortion parts that saves women's lives, eh, Steve?

BONUS: Antonia Z has some choice (hee) words for Motherhood Steve's policy.

Shame on the Ugly Canadians

Just when you think the Harper Government simply cannot further embarrass us on the world stage or horrify us at home, there's this shameful news.

International Development Minister Christian Paradis says the government will not fund overseas projects that allow war rape victims and child brides to obtain an abortion.

To its credit, the NDP jumped in with appropriate outrage.

“It is simply shameful to see Conservatives putting their ideology ahead of helping these vulnerable women,” said Official Opposition International Development Critic Hélène Laverdière (Laurier--Sainte-Marie). “This is about helping some of the world’s most at risk women, it’s a shame Minister Paradis and the Conservatives aren’t willing to put aside their own narrow agenda.”

This announcement runs counter to the Foreign Affairs Minister’s recent emphasis on the plight of child brides.

“In the developing world, complications in childbirth are the number one cause of death for girls aged 15-19,” said Official Opposition Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar. “Just last week Minister Baird told the United Nations that ‘these girls are children; they quite simply are not ready to be parents.’ So why are Conservatives turning their back on them now?”

As we've reported here before, the consequences to victims of war rape are heart-rending and enraging. Victims are shunned by their families and villages and women who are impregnated by rape are rejected by their husbands, if they have them, and so are left to raise a child alone in poverty, creating yet another victim.

But hey, this government is aaaallll about the girls and women, right? That's why Motherhood Steve led the charge on the Maternal Health Initiative, right?

How's that going, by the way, you ask?

Not so shit hot according to Joyce Arthur writing in today's Rabble.

There's been some progress overall on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), of which maternal health is one, but things are not so rosy for women and children.

A great deal of progress has been achieved across all eight goals, but many gaps remain, particularly those relating to women and children (MDG 3, 4, 5). Unfortunately, improvements to women's equality and rights, including access to reproductive health services, generally lag behind most other targets. Since reducing child mortality depends on raising women's status and saving their lives, that goal also has fallen far short in some parts of the world. Each year, more than a million children are left motherless because of women dying during pregnancy or childbirth. These children are up to 10 times more likely to die prematurely than those living in families with a mother.

So, what is Canada doing? Hard to say. It's kind of confusing.

When Canada hosted the G8/G20 summit in 2010, Prime Minister Stephen Harper put maternal and child health front and centre, with resulting pledges of $7.3 billion from participating countries and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. At least $24 billion was needed, however, according to aid groups. Further, Harper had to be shamed into including funding for family planning services in Canada's contribution, and he refused outright to fund safe abortion in countries where it's legal.

Harper decided that Canada's money would be spent on three main needs in 10 countries (seven in Africa): strengthening health systems, reducing the burden of disease, and improving nutrition. So far, it appears that only a tiny portion of Canada's portion of the G8 funding ($2.85 billion) has been spent on family planning, although it's difficult to figure out exactly where all the money is going. Several Google searches produced these tidbits: $20 million for free prenatal care in Haiti, and undisclosed amounts for the UN Population Fund and a sexual and reproductive health project in Bangladesh; $6 million for the International Planned Parenthood Federation (for sex education, family planning and post-abortion counselling); $75 million for the Muskoka Initiative Partnership Program (to strengthen health systems, reduce disease, and improve nutrition); and most recently, $203 million to provide immunizations, basic health care, and community services to make childbirth and pregnancy safer.

Not only is Canada cherry-picking its aid for maternal/child health services, it attaches strings to it. Money can only be spent as per Canada's own goals and guidelines, giving little or no say to smaller groups on the ground in the target country. This makes it far less likely that the money will be used constructively, or will flow to needed reproductive health services such as post-abortion care.

Joyce's column was published before today's shocker. But she points out the fundamental hypocrisy in the Harper Government's incoherent policy.

Ignoring the need for safe abortion in maternal health programs means disregarding the health and lives of millions of women. It also reveals a fundamental hypocrisy. Conservatives apparently believe that only women who have babies are worthy of support -- but most women having abortions are already mothers. As Rachel Atkins says: "There aren't women who have abortions and women who have babies. Those are the same women at different points in their lives." Abandoning women who need abortions therefore means abandoning mothers and children -- the very demographic Harper has promised to help.

If possible, it seems that the Harper Government has even less empathy for women and girls who are brutalized not just by poverty but by war rape and child marriage.

But hey, there's a Conservative convention coming up and the rabid base is starving for red meat.

Motherhood Steve just offered up the bodies of these women and children to the ravening horde.

We're the Ugly Canadians now. Thanks, Steve.

Culture War? Dog Whistle? Ginormous Boo-Boo? Hissy Fit?

So, what the hell is Motherhood Steve up to? We plow through the plethora of punditry so you don't have to. (All emphasis is mine.)

DonMartin:

That’s why it’s takes a selective sense of morality for this government to justify covering the 100,000 Canadian women per year it insures for abortions in sterile medical settings while African women are denied our foreign aid to access the same procedure.
. . .
There’s no obvious easy escape from the mess now. What started as a dream initiative is becoming a policy nightmare for Harper, who should’ve seen this coming months ago when he announced the plan.

Even when pushing a proposal to save lives among those living in wretched faraway conditions as his signature accomplishment, Harper has found a way to set his government apart from the opposition parties.

Given that he’s never seen parliamentary harmony he couldn’t inflame into political divisions, perhaps poisoning this motherhood initiative will end up a fitting Stephen Harper legacy after all.

Edmonton Journal:

Either we as a nation are officially casting ourselves as hypocrites in our dealings with others, since abortion is a right for all women in this country. Surely what is a fundamental liberty for Canadians must be extended to those in the most need who want it, if it is legal in their jurisdiction as it is in ours.

Or, by signalling such a position, Stephen Harper is sending a not very subtle message to his political base that a majority Conservative government in Canada would reopen the debate on a woman's right to choose in this country.

By the way, there's a nifty interactive map of the world at the CBC showing the legal status of abortion in various countries.

Back to the pundits. Barbara Yaffe:

It is unclear why they'd allow themselves to get sidetracked on an international policy that is likely to reinforce fears about Harper's brand of conservatism and potentially deliver a ballot box boot to the backside.

Now Rosie DiManno in what may be the once-in-a-lifetime piece of hers that I actually agree with. She's talking specfically about Africa and the epidemic of rape in some places there. It's a tough read with horrifying stats and stories.

Why should any of these distant horrors matter to Canadians? Because rape as a sexual weapon is driving hundreds of thousands of women in desperate search of abortion on the African continent — where 700 women die for every 100,000 abortions due to backroom butchery — and Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week insisted Canada will not fund abortions in the developing world.

Why Harper would draw this line in the blood-drenched sand, as leader of a country that has no abortion laws and where the medical procedure is covered for Canadian women under the public health insurance plan, is unfathomable. It is particularly contrarian within the context of Canada’s ballyhooed initiative to champion maternal health funding for Africa at the upcoming G8 summit.
. . .
As a result of war and sexual violence, abortion in Africa is indeed a matter of post-violation contraception. For countless women, girls, abortion could provide the slim hope of returning to a life grossly interrupted.

Harper can blather about healthy babies and improved maternal care all he wants. The truth is unwanted babies will die; they’re being murdered right now, because their mothers cannot stand the sight of them — the progeny of their assailants — and cannot cope with exclusion from their communities.

If Harper doesn’t care about these women and girls, would deny them funding for abortions so safely provided to Canadian women, he should at least give a damn about the babies forsaken and killed because they had the misfortune to be born.

Judith Timson in a piece titled 'Ottawa to refuse abortion funding? Not in my name':

Here is a political question that for me, just won’t go away: In exactly whose name has the Harper government decided to withhold funds for access to safe abortion in their international maternal and child health initiative?

Not in my name. And not in the names of countless Canadians who have relied for years on safe access to the procedure at government expense.

The government’s decision has made what should have been international apple pie – a widely applauded global health initiative for women and children – into a political hot potato, not only reviving the endlessly divisive abortion debate, but threatening to have it play out, as one concerned director of an international aid foundation told me, “on the backs of African women and children.”

There’s something fundamentally high-handed about a minority government deciding it won’t offer women overseas the same rights they have here. It’s like a new version of NIMBY (not in my backyard) only it’s the colonial version: NITBY (not in their backyard)
. . .
No, it’s solely up to Canadians to deal with the glaring hypocrisy and paternalism of their government’s stance. While we’re at it, we should also notice how the issue of abortion is being stealthily revived in this country, despite the Prime Minister’s declaration that Canadians have “no appetite” for the debate.
. . .
At the end of that G-8 meeting, Ms. Oda seemed to go out of her way to re-emphasize the government’s position: “So I just want to clarify: Family planning does not include abortion.” Why would she do that, if the Prime Minister wants this debate to go away?

Well, if Bev Oda can “clarify” her position then I will clarify mine: For me and many others, family planning does include abortion. However torturous an ensuing debate, this is clearly a moment that matters in the history of abortion rights in this country. The Conservative government, in a moment of political pandering, has made it matter.

Susan Riley:

Of course there is a culture war raging in federal politics. It's been going on since Preston Manning blew into Ottawa many years ago.

The battle lines are clear. Elitist, cosmopolitan (code for gay, or gay-friendly), urban CBC-lovers -- including "left-wing fringe groups", anti-Israel aid agencies and pro-gay judges -- on one side. Frugal small town and suburban Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules on the other.

And now, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's ill-considered G8 maternal health initiative, the deepest wedge of all: abortion rights.
. . .
Leaving aside the paternalism of allowing abortion access in Canada but discouraging it in Africa, and those annoying experts who argue that access to safe abortion is key component of maternal health, this is a true wedge issue -- one that could blow up in Harper's face.

On Monday, women involved in international advocacy will be asking "Where is Canada's leadership in promoting gender equality?" at an event on Parliament Hill. The maternal health initiative -- which was intended to display the Harper's caring side, but has backfired badly -- will be under unfriendly scrutiny. So will what some see as a Tory stealth agenda, aimed at removing funding from agencies that don't promote social conservative values.

If we're having a culture war, this could be a new front line. No wonder those peace-loving Conservatives are having a sudden attack of the vapours.

Chris Selley whose piece is titled 'A contrived little abortion war'. And he does blame the Liberals.

I’m intrigued by the idea, as championed by Stephen Harper this week, that abortion “divides” Canadians. It does, certainly, on an emotional level. But considering how vicious and clamorous the pro-life vs. pro-choice battle is, there’s actually a remarkable consensus among Canadians that abortion should not be illegal. The last major poll I’m aware of, conducted by Angus Reid in June 2008, found that just 4% of us felt abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances.

There are divisions within the other 96%, of course. Angus Reid found 48% of Canadians felt abortion should always be legal. But nearly as many, 43%, felt there should be some restrictions. And when that 43% was presented with an array of possibilities, such as a cutoff date in a woman’s pregnancy or defunding the procedure under certain circumstances, they couldn’t agree on anything.

But the abortion war isn’t supposed to be about conflicting policy choices; that’s not what ostensibly “divides” us. I’ve never seen a T-shirt braying “We’re OK with the vast majority of abortions!” or a placard reading “Save fetuses older than 13 weeks!” It’s supposed to be black and white: All abortions are OK, or all abortions are evil. (These are the only two coherent positions on the matter, in my view, and for the record, I uneasily subscribe to the former.) If only 4% of Canadians actually think all fetuses are human beings — to say nothing of perdurable pro-choicers who blanch at sex-selective termination — then I’m forced to conclude that this whole war is a bit of a sham.

Mr. Harper was explaining his government’s pledge — which came after weeks of hemming and hawing, and is no doubt subject to further review, tweaking or outright abandonment — not to fund abortions in the dusty, faraway lands where it wants to improve maternal health. The government is free to focus its efforts where and how it wishes. But an absolute ban on abortion-related spending on the grounds Mr. Harper cited is dizzyingly nonsensical. No one seems to disagree that, in certain circumstances, and morality aside, abortion can improve women’s health outcomes. Canada has no abortion law. Canadians do not support outlawing it. Canadian governments fund it. And Mr. Harper has sworn blind since being elected that he has no intention whatsoever of changing any of that. Ever. Hidden agenda? Pshaw. Long live our unique legal vacuum, envy of nations!

By the standards Mr. Harper espoused this week, that sounds awfully divisive. And nonsensical. Does he think we value foreign fetuses ahead of Canadian ones? Are women not raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Is there no incest in Haiti? It doesn’t survive a moment’s scrutiny.

Another by the way -- here is a much more recent poll from April 1 this year.

A majority of Canadians describe themselves as leaning pro-choice with regard to abortion. A little more than a quarter prefer “pro-life”, with the remainder undecided.

This finding of a 2-1 margin in favour of the pro-choice position is almost unchanged from the answers Canadians gave to the identical question a decade ago.

More punditry: Susan Delacourt:

For the first time since taking power more than four years ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week openly embraced a solid, social-conservative policy of the right — refusing to have Canada support abortion in foreign-aid projects.

Political observers were stunned.

After all this time practising the politics of pragmatism, steering his party away from any of the polarizing, social conservatism that scares off many women, urban and centrist voters, Harper branded his government as anti-abortion.

It’s a decision that could well haunt the Conservatives into the next election campaign, depending on how Harper’s opponents handle it.

Mindelle Jacobs:

If the Harper Conservatives are trying to woo mainstream Canada and gain enough trust to win another election, they have a funny way of doing it.

First, they insist they don’t want to get into an abortion debate in the lead-up to June’s G8 summit in Ontario. Then they deliberately wade into the issue. It’s as if they get a kick out of committing political suicide.

After weeks of obfuscation, the Conservatives have finally declared that Canada won’t fund abortion under our G8 maternal and child health initiative. To top it off, International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda made the bizarre statement that “Canada has never funded a procedure that included abortion.”

Jacobs then points out that Canada through CIDA has been funding International Planned Parenthood Federation's work around the world for decades.

Changes may be in the works to that longstanding policy though.

Nearly a year after asking the Canadian government to renew its funding, the International Planned Parenthood Federation is still waiting for an answer and if the money doesn't come through, the agency says the impact on its work in developing countries will be devastating.

The sexual and reproductive health organization depends on funding from governments around the world for a majority of its budget. It has a long-standing partnership with the Canadian International Development Agency but its most recent funding agreement ended on December 31. Months before that, in June 2009, IPPF submitted its proposal to renew the previous funding, worth $18 million over three years.

Is the stalling on IPPF's funding an indication that this has been in the works for a while? Is it a dog whistle to the base base? Or is Stevie ('I'm never wrong and I never back down') Peevie just digging his widdle heels in because the meanies in the Liberal Party tried to force his hand on the issue? No matter that the fucking Liberals failed spectacularly, Stevie was peeved.

Delacourt is right, I think. This issue will kill the ReformaTories at the polls -- but only if the Useless Opposition plays it right. We at DJ! have been shrieeeeking saying this for ages. Canada is a pro-choice country. And nothing will mobilize the women of Canada to get out and vote like trying to turn back the clock on our cherished and hard-won rights.

In a final by the way, the base base as represented by The Freaks aren't buying it. Even they think Stevie is getting his ass kicked over this.

Where's Steve-o?

So, where is Motherhood Steve?

Not here.

The Washington meeting, titled Women Deliver, is timed to bolster the G20 agenda for pumping up funds for maternal health. There are 3,300 advocates and politicians attending from 140 countries, including the heads of major UN agencies, government ministers, parliamentarians, celebrity campaigners and former heads of state.

“It is a surprise that Stephen Harper didn’t come,” said Women Deliver president Jill Sheffield. “He and Laureen Harper were invited and they didn’t even reply. This is his legacy issue. We thought he might at least have sent a message.”

Didn't even reply.

“It’s really astounding,” said Maureen McTeer, a women’s advocate and wife of former Tory prime minister Joe Clark. “Historically Canada has been looked up to in the world, because we believed in issues like this. But (Harper) can’t even take a one-hour flight to Washington to show his solidarity with the world’s women. By not going, he is taking a negative stand.”

. . .

Canada’s presence in Washington so far has been limited to NGO efforts. International co-operation minister Bev Oda, who made a last-minute agreement to appear at the conference, will join a dialogue Wednesday with Tore Godal, a special adviser to Norway’s prime minister, and leader in the campaign for reproductive health. But the Prime Minister’s place at the table remains empty.

Any questions?

This is what TheoCon maternal healthcare looks like

This is what Motherhood Steve wants to offer poor women in the developing world. From Nicaragua* again.

Nicaraguan authorities have withheld life-saving treatment from a pregnant cancer patient because it could harm the foetus and violate a total ban on abortion.

A state-run hospital has monitored the cancer spreading in the body of the 27-year-old named only as Amalia since her admission on February 12 but has not offered chemotherapy, radiotherapy or a therapeutic abortion, citing the law.

The decision has ignited furious protests from relatives and campaigners who say the woman, who has a 10-year-old daughter and is 10 weeks pregnant, will die unless treated. The cancer is suspected to have spread to her brain, lungs and breasts. They have petitioned the courts, government and the pan-regional Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to intervene.

The case has revived controversy over the 2007 law which made Nicaragua one of the few countries to prohibit abortion under any circumstances. Girls and women who seek an abortion, and health professionals who provide health services associated with abortion, face jail.

No exceptions. None. Not rape, not incest. Certainly not the health or life of the woman. Even women carrying fetuses with no brains and zero hope of life must carry them to term.

Amalia is being monitored at a hospital in Leon, the second-largest city in the impoverished central American country. The hospital director, Ricardo Cuadra, said the case had been referred to a government-run medical commission which is due to issue a recommendation next Monday.

The doctors won't treat her because they're scared. Imagine being one of the doctors or nurses 'monitoring' Amalia.

The government said it would make an announcement after the medical commission reported. "We will comment on this case in due time," said the health minister, Guillermo Gonzalez.

And then the spin:

In apparent reference to the authorities' frequent clashes with non-governmental organisations, he added: "Unfortunately, it seems that there are political interests behind this."

Spin taken up by a Catlick organ.

In an attempt to pressure officials in Nicaragua to legalize abortion, feminist groups are drawing attention to the dramatic case of a pregnant woman suffering from cancer, arguing that the only chance of survival for “Amelia,” the fictitious name given to the woman, is to undergo an abortion.

Um. No, not in anything I've read. Amalia's family and supporters want her cancer treated.

Typical fetus fetishist fantasy. Elsewhere in the article, there is the claim that Amalia is being 'sequestered' by the evil abortion-loving feminazis.

Last summer, DJ! blogged on a scathing report from Amnesty International.

According to official figures, 33 girls and women have died in pregnancy this year as compared to 20 in the same period last year. Amnesty International believes these figures are only a minimum as the government itself has acknowledged that the number of maternal deaths is under-recorded.

And ferlardsake, it's not just the preventable deaths of these women, but the bloody suffering they go through. And their families. And their soon-to-be-orphaned children.

Yet this is the kind of no-family-planning, no-contraception, no-abortion, misogynist healthcare Steve is promoting.

It's unconscionable.

* For more information on the dastardly wheeling and dealing, including Daniel Ortega's embrace of Catholicism, at least in part to evade charges of 'systematic sexual abuse' of his step-daughter, check out this old blogpost I wrote at Birth Pangs.

Canada Backs Maternal Health Only in Countries Where Abortion Is Illegal

The screwed-up communications on abortion funding as part of Motherhood Steve's maternal health initiative continue.

Canada will fund an organization that provides family planning services around the world — but only in countries where abortion is illegal in most cases, CBC News has learned.
. . .
Planned Parenthood, which provides an array of sexual and reproductive health services, including abortions, abortion counselling and training for providers, is getting the federal funding after Oda let the agency's previous request sit on her desk for a year without a response, and after a Conservative MP told an anti-abortion group that the government wouldn’t be giving the organization any money.

Oda's decision to approve Planned Parenthood's proposal comes more than a year after Canada was embroiled in controversy over whether to fund abortions as part of a G8 commitment to improve maternal health in developing countries.

The proposal gets around the thorny issue of abortion by asking for money for sex education and contraception services, and does not include abortion services.

The funding is worth $6 million over three years for Planned Parenthood to work in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania, where abortions are illegal except in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

Ain't that grand? Or would be when Bev Odious gets around to informing IPP.

A spokesman for International Planned Parenthood said Thursday that he was excited to hear about the funding, but that the group hasn't heard "a whisper" about it from the Canadian International Development Agency, Oda's department.

The funding proposal was resubmitted after the 2011 election, Paul Bell said. It had been revised one more time and the organization was waiting for a response.
. . .
In an email Thursday night, Oda's spokesman said CIDA told the group their proposal was approved.

"Today, International Planned Parenthood Federation has been informed that its application for funding has been approved under the Maternal, Newborns and Child Health commitment," Justin Broekema said in a statement.

The CBC link provides a good backgrounder to the whole idiotic story. In short, Canada, where there is NO law on abortion, gets all squishy squeamish about funding abortion in other countries where it is also LEGAL.

Big Daddy Steve and his misogynist minions can try to spin this as standing up for women and children. But Canadian women should be in no doubt. This government does ^NOT see women's issues as any kind of priority. See here for a list of Canadian women's groups gleefully defunded by the patriarchal Contempt Party.

ADDED: Fetus fetishists not happy. Big-mouth Brad Trost to issue statement this week.

Fetus Lobby® Stamps Its Widdle Feet

Oh dear. During the recent federal election big-mouth Contempt Party back-bencher Brad Trost bragged that because of his hard work, the International Planned Parenthood Federation would ^NOT be funded under Motherhood Steve's Maternal Health Initiative.

Well, it seems IPPF will get funding but only for projects in countries where abortion is illegal.

Not good enough for Brad-Boy. He threatened last week to make a strong statement and now he has (emphasis mine).

Response to Federal Government's Decision to Fund IPPF

Late in the afternoon of Thursday, September 22nd, I received a phone call from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) about a news story on the CBC that had run earlier in the day. The CBC reported that the federal government had approved funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

A PMO staffer explained to me that the story had not been accurate when it ran, but due to the day's events, the CBC story was mostly accurate now. Apparently, six staffers in CIDA Minister Bev Oda's office had been working on a grant to fund IPPF -- and one of them decided to leak the story to the CBC.

Rather than deny the story, a decision was made to rush funding to IPPF to the tune of $6 million over three years. (I was told that the funding letter was sent out at 4 pm that afternoon.)

People have asked how funding IPPF squares with the repeated statement that Canada will not fund abortion internationally. The PMO attempts to square this circle by only permitting IPPF funding to go into countries that ban abortion.

Considering that promoting abortion internationally is central to the identity of IPPF, this sort of political hairsplitting only seems to make sense in the Ottawa bubble. This is a position I totally reject.

Since 2006, Conservative MPs have been asking to have IPPF defunded.

In 2006, our request that federal funding for IPPF be stopped was ignored because we asked politely--and behind closed doors.

In 2009, we became more aggressive and began to take our campaign public.

Many, many Conservative MPs pressed the PMO to stop the funds from flowing. Federal funding did stop for a time. Funds allocated to IPPF were considerably reduced. Furthermore, federal grants for IPPF also had more strings attached.

This only happened because of the pressure applied. This was a real victory.

Bureaucrats have fought for years to keep the status quo and continue the funding of the IPPF that was established by the Liberals.

The battle over the IPPF continues.

Pro-Life politicians have been taught a lesson.

The government only responds to Pro-Life issues and concerns when we take an aggressive stance.

We will apply this lesson.

Hmm. Seems Brad and other members of the Fetus Lobby® don't have quite the clout they thought they did.

Awkward, isn't it?

And doesn't it make you proud to be Canadian? Our Fetus Lobby® cannot defund or recriminalize abortion here, so they try to punish a good organization doing good work for desperately poor women and children in war-torn countries, one of them, Afghanistan, war-torn in our name.

Media coverage: CBC and Macleans, with the title 'Brad Trost Goes Rogue'.

This should be fun. Stevie Peevie does ^NOT enjoy backtalk.

Progressive Push-Back

I started this blogpost soon after the Merkin election, but then got too busy for a long, linkful post.

While I was mightily depressed over the results, I was looking for silver linings. And I found a few.

Traditionally (somewhat) more progressive places like Illinois, New York, and California stayed Democratic.

In the Illinois governor's race, the Democrat beat the Teabagger after trailing badly for weeks in the polls. On election morning, did the good/sane people of Illinois wake up and say 'Holy crap! What were we thinking?'

In Colorado, where, despite its nutbars' obsession with the Humpty-Dumpty Initiative, the rest of the people are really quite sane. Not only did they thumpingly reject yet another attempt to give 'personhood' to fertilzed eggs, they crushed the ambition of another Teabagger, much credit going to the women.

Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, says Ken Buck lost his Senate races because independent women voters flocked to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) on Election Day.

“Ads attacking Buck on abortion and rape and all those issues were targeted to unaffiliated women and it worked, Buck became unacceptable and they voted for Bennet,” Wadhams said in an interview.

(This is the jerk who, as district attorney, referred to a woman's rape as 'buyer's remorse'.)

New York stayed Democratic too.

And in California, after one of the most vitriolic campaigns against an incumbent I've ever seen, the Dem won.

Yet in spite of her perennially weak approval ratings, a political climate that favored Republicans and what she called the "toughest and roughest campaign" of her lifetime, Boxer pulled out yet another victory, trouncing former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina 52% to 42.6%, with some ballots still to be counted.

Carly Fucking Fiorina is anti-choice, natch.

In the governor's race, millionaire businesswoman Meg Whitman went down to defeat at the hands of Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown, after reportedly spending $175 million of her own dough. This time, credit the Latinos after Whitman got 'tough on illegals'.

So, where the Dems had the wit to actively campaign against the nuttier notions of the Douchebaggers, the sane people woke up.

And I think -- and this guy too thinks -- that the extreme anti-abortion position acted as the clarion call.

While almost nothing went right for Democratic candidates this fall, one issue turned out to be a winner in some of the closest Senate races in the nation: abortion.

By branding Republican challengers as outside the cultural mainstream on the issue, Democrats managed to hold on to at least a slice of the political center by courting and winning over moderate women in a handful of key states.

The strategy ran counter to the one that enabled the party to broaden the political map in 2006 and 2008, when Democrats thrived by running candidates whose positions on abortion were closely attuned to the socially conservative areas where they sought office.

This year, however, Democrats adopted almost the opposite approach late in the 2010 campaign. As many of the anti-abortion Democrats elected over the last four years were going down in defeat, the party made abortion a central concern in a handful of battleground Senate races — and they ended up in the Democratic column as a result.

I think the boyos in the 'war rooms' underestimate the (sometimes) slumbering giant of women's rights as an issue.

Over Motherhood Steve's totally hypocritical Maternal Health Initiative, I was encouraging the fucking Liberals to use abortion rights as a wedge issue.

But, of course, being fucking Liberals, they fucked it up.

Maybe this US election will show our progressives how to do it right.

Call the shitheads out. Show them to be the extremists they are. Fight back!

Women

I have Al Jazeera on just about all the time while I'm at the computer. Riz Khan came on and the subject was maternal health in Africa. I decided to watch to see if our Dear Leader's name or grand plan came up.

In order to snark at Motherhood Steve, of course. (Answer: Didn't come up.)

But then I got rivetted by the guest, Liya Kebede, a stunning Ethiopian super-model, actress, and WHO Good Will Ambassador for maternal health.

She was charming and articulate and stuck to the subject, until Khan brought up her own charitable foundation and her effort to support Ethiopian women's hand-weaving traditions with her fashion line, lemlem, which means 'to bloom' in Amharic.

The very last bit was about her starring in a movie called 'Desert Flower' based on a book by the same name by another gorgeous super-model, Somalian Waris Dirie.

In 1997, at the height of her modeling career, Waris spoke for the first time with Laura Ziv of the women's magazine Marie Claire about the female genital cutting (FGC) that she had undergone as a child, an interview which received worldwide media coverage. That same year, Waris became a UN ambassador for the abolition of FGC, and later paid her mother a visit in her native Somalia.

Apparently, she was the first woman to speak so publicly about it. She has a foundation too.

Women, eh? Talk about giving back. . .

Patriarchy is so fucking stoooopid. Stifling the brains, courage, and creativity of half the world's population.

Bonus: Photo of Liya.

This is what TheoCon maternal healthcare looks like -- UPDATE

I was wondering what happened to Amalia, the pregnant Nicaraguan woman who has cancer. Doctors were afraid to treat her because it might harm or kill the fetus and expose them to the draconian law prohibiting abortion for any reason.

Her case was to be reviewed by a panel of some sort.

No follow-up in the English press but I found this, alas in Spanish.

I ran it through Babel Fish and got the gist, but being the responsible blogger I am, I wanted to make sure. So I zipped the link to Beijing York, who translated the relevant bit:

Despite international and national pressure from various human rights groups - arguing that women should have the right to abort in order to save their lives, the Nicaraguan Medical Association produced a statement saying (more or less):

"An abortion is not going to cure this woman of her cancer or metastasis, for which she needs to receive appropriate treatment, be it curative or palliative and ensure her quality of life."

After 10 days of debates from when she first entered the medical system at 12 weeks gestation, the doctors have agreed to start chemotherapy.

First, Amalia had to sign a form taking full responsibility should any harm come to her fetus during the treatment now that the medical team has stated that they would not perform an abortion.

On Feb 26, the Health Ministry approved the chemotherapy. The doctors officially advised that the fetus would be impacted and might not survive the treatments.

According to some doctors (who remained anonymous), this young woman has very little chance of recovering from her cancer. The Ministry had no comment.

So. There. Dead woman. Dead fetus.

And she gets to torture herself for whatever time remains for her with thoughts of what the chemotherapy is doing to her fetus. After all, she was forced to take 'full responsibility' for it.

Could it be any more twisted?

And this is the kind of no-abortion, no-contraception, no-family-planning maternal healthcare that Motherhood Steve is promoting for poor countries.

In our name.

Exactly how would Stevie guarantee 'anti-abortion' legislation is defeated?

I have some questions about the 'not reopen the abortion issue' brouhaha.

Here's what Motherhood Steve had to say:

“As long as I am prime minister we are not opening the abortion debate,” Mr. Harper declared. “The government will not bring forward any such legislation and any such legislation that is brought forward will be defeated as long as I am prime minister.”

Kady is allll over the mechanics of 'will be defeated' bit. Basically, how?

Whip the vote on private members' bills? Somehow block the stacked Senate from passing? Institute a Prime Ministerial veto?

Kady has asked the CPC so-called War Room and will report as will I.

My other question is: Who will define what 'anti-abortion' legislation is?

Because remember the sponsors of the last two private members' sneaky back-door attempts to throw up barriers to legal abortion both swore up hill and down dale that their bills had nothing, nada, zip, zero, to do with abortion. Both Bruinooge and Epp lied their asses off all over the country on any media that would have them, saying that anyone who thought their bills had anything to do with abortion were paranoid libtard feminazis.

Well, except for the base, who definitely heard the dog whistle. Our fave, Mr Kicking Abortion's Ass, said so quite triumphantly.

I want Peter Mansbridge to get a clear answer to this in the much-touted interview tonight.

I also want a pony.

What Do (Third World) Women Want?

Anti-choice forces say Third World Women Don't Want Contraceptives, Expert Tells Canadian Politicians.

Well, let's listen to the those Third World women, shall we?

Uganda has run out of contraceptives.

She was 16 years when she had her first baby. In six years, she was a mother of four. Tired, she sought the help of a herbalist in vain. She was pregnant again before her little one was barely three months.

Desperate, she went to Mityana Health Centre III, but they had only pills. She could not take them because her husband did not approve of contraceptives. She was advised to use depo-povera - a type of contraceptive and was injected.

However, she discontinued the contraceptive after three months because of prolonged bleeding and frequent headaches. Now a mother of seven and probably still counting, her only hope lies in a permanent method, tubaligation, which her local facility cannot provide.

This is the story of Eseza Nabbanja, 37, wife to Dan Kaweesa of Myanzi subcounty in Mityana district. "I have been struggling to get a family planning method since 1997, long before anyone in this village knew about modern contraceptives.

My husband was against it because he wanted to have more children," Nabbanja says. She thinks the situation has improved because NGOs are educating locals about the benefits of family planning.

But the long-term contraceptives are rarely available at Mityana health centre. "You have to trek to Mityana Hospital which is about 25km away," she says.

In patriarchal societies, women resort to 'discreet' methods of contraception, like injectables and implants. Yet these are the types they are not getting.

A medical superintendent of a non-profit-making hospital with a family planning programme that serves more than 700 couples each month wrote to The New Vision about the plight.

He said for the last one year, the National Medical Stores (NMS) supplied the hospital with injections, oral contraceptive pills and implants. They also invested in staff who deliver family planning free of charge in hard-to-reach parts of the country.

Suddenly, NMS stopped supplying drugs to non-government health units.

The hospital was referred to the Joint Medical Stores (JMS), who said they do not stock contraceptives for religious reasons, thus the shortage.

"We purchased emergency supplies from PACE, but will have to pass their cost onto our patients," the source said.

Poor women with the highest need for family planning, cannot afford it.

A source from NMS who preferred anonymity says the drug body has run out of contraceptives.

One regional hospital 'has not had contraceptives for 10 months now'.

And while Tanzania has reduced its birth rate somewhat, it too is facing a country-wide shortage of contraceptives.

And these are news stories from just the last couple of days.

It may be that the situation will ease now that Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy, or Global Gag Rule, which denied US funding to any group that provided or even referred for abortion. And foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are helping too. Its website states:

Family planning saves lives.
One of the most cost-effective public health interventions available today is family planning. Voluntary family planning is a critical lifesaving intervention that can significantly improve the health of women and their families.

But Canada, once a beacon of sense and compassion, is now a laughing stock in the international community because of Motherhood Steve's Christo-Talibanny G8 maternal health thingy. And while he has walked back a bit from insisting that it was not atallatall about family planning, Third World women do want family planning. And they're not getting the contraceptives they want.

DJ! Supports the Throne Speech

Well, one bit of it. Changing the lyrics of O Canada.

I've always balked at 'all thy sons' and thought: 'What am I, chopped liver?'

Of course, considering the source, Motherhood Steve, it's complete bullshit as any kind of progressive or woman-friendly move.

And, oh, look. Iggy agrees.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said the initiative to change the lyrics is the kind of "symbolic gesture" the Conservative government makes when it doesn't want to do anything real.

"Anything that makes a national anthem more gender-sensitive is a good thing," he told CBC News.

"But, I mean, no disrespect to those who feel strongly on this issue, but, for heaven's sake, we have some very important challenges and every time the government is asked to do something real, it does something symbolic.

"There's lots of things to do for women that are more important than changing the words of the national anthem, just as there are lots of things to do for pensioners and seniors that are more important than having a Seniors Day."

But the best part?

It's pissing off their base base. Viz, the Freaks.

A sample comment:

Another example of bowing to the demands of the 'Socialist Republic of Quebecistan.' Its bad enough that some francophones embarrsed the country inter-nationally about the so called lack of french spoken at the Olympic opening ceremonies.

Who do the Tories think they are, LIEberals Shame on you

Which yet again demonstrates the reading comprehension skills of the knuckle-draggers. The ReformaTories' proposed change applies to the English lyrics only.

Ride That Horsey!

Yee haw!

Liberals are hoping to pin down Prime Minister Stephen Harper over where he stands on abortion in his G8 maternal-health initiative for the Third World.

The Opposition is to introduce a motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday demanding that the plan cover a "full range" of family-planning options, which would include contraception and abortion.

The Conservative government has been unclear about whether the plan will fund such options.

The motion says funding all options would be consistent with the policy of previous governments -- both Conservative and Liberal -- and with the approach approved by all G8 countries, including Canada, just last year.

The motion should pass easily with the support of all three opposition parties.

It could put the Conservatives in an awkward spot, forcing them to clarify the issue and potentially alienate one faction or another within the party.

Some readers may recall that Iggy and I have a troubled relationship, though I did applaud him when he first threw down the abortion gauntlet. But I really think this issue has legs.

From the beginning Motherhood Steve has been flipping and flopping on his G8 maternal health initiative.

The trick is to get the language -- oh noes! 'abortion language!' -- just right. Appease the base -- no contraception, no family planning. But repeating ad nauseum 'we will not reopen the abortion debate' -- for everyone else.

It's not working very well.

LifeShite has this headline: 'PM Harper "Caves": "Not Closing the Door" on Contraception in G8 Maternal Health Push'.

"As we have been saying all along, we are not closing the door on any options that will save the lives of mothers and children, including contraception," Oda said in response to a question from Bob Rae. "And as we have been saying all along, we are not opening the abortion debate."

Layton pressed the Prime Minister further, asking a question that he called "extremely important" and "extremely clear": "Does the Prime Minister agree with the broad sweep of opinion that is extremely clear, that contraception saves lives?"

Harper avoided the question, insisting that he had already answered it, and attempted to raise a different issue.
. . .

Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer for Campaign Life Coalition, called the Prime Minister's comments "a giant step backwards and a disappointment."

"We're disappointed that the Conservative government has taken a step backwards in accepting contraception when they were very clear that their aim was to provide good maternal care," she commented. "All Canadians were supportive of providing good maternal health care, safe water, medicines and so on, so why bring in divisive items such as contraception and abortion?"

Douglas concluded, "The Prime Minister has caved in to pressure from pro-abortion activists to allow for contraception in the G8 health plan. Hopefully he will not cave on abortion too."

Ooooo, the dread word -- 'caved'.

A CBC poll asked if contraception should be part of the initiative. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of Canadians said YES (90% to 9%).

This issue resonates with normal people. This issue clearly demonstrates Stevie Peevie's problem with his base. He's hog-tied.

But don't listen to me. Listen to my Facebook friend Connie Fournier at the Freaks:

Ignatieff is playing this perfectly. He knows that Harper will run like a sissy from this issue, and it will cause another fracture in the conservative base.

When Harper promised to never let anyone discuss the issue of abortion, he showed the Liberals his Achille's heel. He proves it every election cycle when he makes some lame-assed pro-abortion* comment in the middle of the campaign and his poll numbers immediately take a dive.

As long as Harper lets them kick this sand in his face, they are going to keep doing it.

Kick that sand! Ride that horsey!

*Actually, I think it should be 'when he makes any reference to abortion', his poll numbers dive.

The Walk-Back Begins

On that Motherhood Steve maternal health thingy.

Or maybe we should call it a flip-flop.

Yesterday:

“It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning,” Mr. Cannon said about the initiative when he met with the committee. “Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives.”

Today:

“The government’s position is clear,” the Prime Minister said. “I think the minister responded – the government is seeking to get the G8 countries to act to save lives, mothers and children, throughout the world.

“We are not closing doors against any options including contraception. But we do not want a debate here or elsewhere on abortion.”

Gee, what do you think prompted Stevie Peevie to 'clarify' something that was perfectly clear out of the mouths of Bev Odious and Lawrence LooseCannon?

The fact that this idiocy would have made Canada look like a buffoon among G8 members?

Maybe the political drubbing the notion was attracting?

Or maybe the spanking it took in today's NattyPo, of all places?

Ah, I've got it. Harper doesn't want to be associated with this guy.

Because, you know, some wag with PhotoShop skills (hint hint) might do this to a photo of Harpo.

Abortion? Seriously?

Here's Lorrie Goldstein, Senior Associate Editor for the Toronto Sun, on February 6, 2010, under the headline Abortion Fight? Give us a break.

Abortion? Seriously? This is the divisive debate Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff wants to plunge Canada back into when Parliament resumes March 3?

This was back when Motherhood Steve was pimping his maternal health initiative that excluded safe abortion and contraception and the Libs had cooked up a little gotcha.

Here's more:

But it won't just be Tories who split on abortion, thus wasting Parliament's time on an issue most Canadians consider, and want, to remain settled.

Got that? Silly Liberals wasting valuable time on a settled issue.

By the way, as it turns out, Goldstein was dead right about the split on abortion. DJ! reported:

Well. If you haven't heard yet, the MOTION WAS DEFEATED.

BY THE FUCKING HARPER LIBERALS, to wit, Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo, and John McKay, who voted with the TheoCons against family planning.

Yes, indeedy, in the 21st century, there are people who have the gall to call themselves Liberals and yet vote against their party in order to tell the wimmins -- yet again -- what we can do with our lady parts.

Let's go back to Goldstein:

Is this really what Ignatieff wants pre-occupying Parliament when it resumes? To roll back the clock and reignite the debate over abortion?

Who's rolling back the clock and wasting time over a settled issue now, eh?

DJ! implores sensible MPs to resist this old chestnut of junior-high debating clubs. When the first hour of debate comes up in April, it would be grand if, one after another, MPs rose to say: 'Mr Speaker, to paraphrase Lorrie Goldstein: "This is an attempt to roll back the clock. I refuse to waste this House's time over a settled matter".'

Let the Woodworths, Trosts, Vellacotts, and Del Mastros witter on the 'sanctity of life' demonstrating that the Cons' Hidden Agenda starts -- as usual -- with the wimmin.

Been there. Done that.

Won.

BONUS: Twitter is still having fun with the hashtag #TellAntiChoiceMPsEverything.

If It's Lives We Want to Save

So now we know why Motherhood Steve's maternal health initiative doesn't include family planning, let alone abortion.

"It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives," Mr. Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee.

Family planning and saving women's and children's lives cannot be separated as anyone with a functioning brain and no rightwing religious base to appease knows. But instead of posting a bunch of sciency-facty links proving that, let's instead look at one of the countries where the new and (dis)improved maternal health initiative may be called on to operate.

Kenya is trying to wrangle itself a new constitution. It's not going that well. Old political factions still exist and, to make things worse, the church stepped in to stamp its feet over the possibility of abortion being allowed.

An op-ed today by Isaiah Esipisu is titled If it’s lives we want to save, let’s make abortion legal.

Issues touching on sex are treated discreetly, especially in Africa. People rarely want to talk about sex in public, lest they sound immoral.

The same applies to abortion. Government officials, church leaders, and nearly all Kenyans know well that it takes place in the backstreet under quacks.

They know of women who have died procuring an abortion unsafely, or some who have suffered the negative consequences of abortion. But they are afraid to talk about it in public, lest they sound immoral.

But, just like our teenagers usually discover sex on their own, studies from some African countries indicate that nearly 90 per cent of teenage girls know at least one crude method of procuring an abortion — a method they discovered on their own.

And they rarely discuss it with their elders or their parents, lest they sound immoral.

Expanding the scope for safe abortion services remains a delicate one. If any policy-maker supported the proposal of including it in the Constitution, their political opponents would definitely use it as a campaign tool to question their morality.

During the just-concluded East, Central and Southern African Health Ministers’ Conference in Kampala, Kenya’s director of medical services made it clear that Kenya was not going to allow abortion services to be conducted in any of the health centres, unless the life of the mother was in danger.

The subject is unsafe abortion and there are some gory details I'll spare you. Let's get to the numbers:

According to government estimates, more than 860 women procured unsafe abortions yesterday, and a similar number will do it again today, and again tomorrow. In short, 316,560 abortions are procured unsafely every year, where 20,000 of the women end up in hospital beds, while 2,600 of them die.

This costs the country’s health systems an estimated Sh18 million every year.

And now for the facty-sciency studies:

Evidence from countries with progressive safe abortion laws indicate that appropriate laws, policies and services can eliminate deaths and injuries.

South Africa is a good example, where even midwives are allowed to offer the services on demand, especially if the pregnancies are 12 weeks old or less.

As a result, government records indicate that the country has reduced the maternal mortality rates due to unsafe abortion by 91 per cent since 1997, when the law was passed.

Abortion is lawful in Ghana, if the pregnancy is a result of rape, defilement or incest. It is also allowed if continued pregnancy would put the woman at risk, or where the child is likely to develop an abnormality. The same applies in Ethiopia and Zambia.

Maternal mortality in these countries due to unsafe abortions has reduced. Kenya may need to borrow a leaf and address abortion, not immorality.

Ah, I can hear Bev Odious and Lawrence LooseCannon now: 'What does this guy know? We in the developed world know what's good for these poor people and that's what they're going to get, even if we have to shove it down their throats.'

Oh. Wait. I'm wrong. That's what LifeShite said about Ignatieff's demand that the initiative address abortion.

And, if safe abortion saves lives, how many more would be saved by offering family planning so that women who don't want to get pregnant can take sensible measures to avoid it?