Inkless Wells

 Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Harper's G8 "maternal health" plan: 0 for 3 and counting

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:07pm - 105 Comments

See, the thing about the Harper government’s plan to present a maternal and child health initiative at the G8 that wouldn’t include any provision for family planning (let us call it by its names: access to abortion and contraception) is that the Harper government would be presenting it at the G8. Which means that, if they are looking for anything but a fight, the Conservatives need to present a plan that would be compatible with the policies of other G8 countries.

So this morning I called around. Three G8 partners have responded so far: the U.S., the United Kingdom and the European Union (France, the UK, Italy and Germany all attend as individual G8 members and the European Commission kind of hangs around too). I’m waiting on another country to get back to me, but I’m struck by the uniform response of the first three: each declined to put up a government spokesperson or diplomat to speak directly to this morning’s Globe story, but each referred me to specific documents outlining their own policy on maternal and child health. And the documents they pointed to were… eloquent. Here’s the roundup:

• United Kingdom

Through a spokesperson, the Brown government in London sent this comment:

“We welcome the focus Canada is placing on the Millennium Development Goals during its Chairmanship of the G8. The [British] PM in Parliament today said: “Five hundred thousand mothers die avoidable deaths each year… This is one of the policy themes of the G8 summit. It is important that we support whatever action can be taken. We as a Government are doing more than most to try to reduce this appalling level of suffering, which can be avoided.” We look forward to working with G8 partners at the Summit to ensure further progress is made towards meeting the MDG on maternal health.”

The spokesperson also directed me to a White Paper from 2009 and specified that the discussion beginning at Section 5.45 in particular would be germane. That section calls, in part, for “safe abortion services (where abortion is legal)” and “a rise by one-third in the number of contraceptive users.”

• United States

If you Google the phrase “Global Gag Rule,” you’ll see that a policy very closely resembling the Harper/Cannon no-condoms-for-Africa doctrine has been a political ping-pong ball in the United States for a generation. Reagan implemented the rule and Bush 41 kept it in place. Clinton revoked it during his first week as President. Bush 43 re-introduced it during his first week as President. Obama re-revoked it during his first week as President.

Obama is still President.

Ambassador David Jacobson was travelling and unavailable for comment today. A U.S. government spokesperson told me, “USAID has been a leader in support for voluntary population planning in developing countries for four decades” and pointed me to these documents:

Barack Obama’s Ghana speech is the least specific, but talks about mothers dying in childbirth. This blog post by an advisor to UN Ambassador Susan Rice is more specific, with its call for “increased resources and access to women’s sexual and reproductive health services.” And this fact sheet from USAID (link loads a .pdf) breaks it all down for anyone who’s still confused:

Global Importance of Family Planning

• Saves lives of mothers and children: Births that are too close together, too early, or too late in a woman’s life decrease both the mother’s and the infant’s chances for survival. By helping women space births at least three years apart, bear children during their healthiest years, and avoid unplanned pregnancies, family planning could prevent 25 percent of maternal and child deaths in the developing world.

• Reduces abortion rates: Unintended pregnancy can result in abortion.An estimated 35 million abortions take place each year in the developing world.Wider availability of family planning programs could prevent many of these abortions.

• Important in fight against HIV/AIDS, particularly mother-to-child HIV transmission: Family planning allows HIV-positive women to space births for optimal health and contributes to programs providing voluntary counseling and testing and pre­ vention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) services. Family planning services also help reduce stigma, improve referral networks for HIV-related services, and prevent unintended pregnancy, HIV infection, and other sexually transmitted infec­tions.

I could go on. The fact sheet sure does. It dates from December, 2009 — three months ago.

• European Union

Again, nobody at the Delegation of the European Commission in Ottawa would comment on the Globe report, or offer anyone in Brussels to comment for the record. But a spokesman sent this note, which in some ways is the most specific of the three I’ve so far received:

The content of G8 initiatives is still under discussion. Initiatives will have to be agreed by all G8 leaders.

Initiatives will be, as always, in line with internationally agreed commitments, in this case the “Cairo declaration” (International conference on population and development, ICPD 1994), which binds all UN members.

This declaration includes all the necessary elements to promote responsible parenthood, counseling and family planning activities in support of the Millennium Development Goals, MDGs 4 and 5, and in accordance with national legislation.

(a) The links to ICPD Program of Action:

A summary of the ICPD Program of Action: http://www.unfpa.org/icpd/summary.cfm

The full text: http://www.unfpa.org/icpd/icpd-programme.cfm

(b) The link to the Millennium Development Goals: MDG 5 on Maternal Health. The second target under Millennium Development Goals 5 relates to universal access to reproductive health, including family planning. It is often referred to as the ‘unmet need’, pointing at the difference between the number of women who would like to avoid a pregnancy and the number of women having access to modern contraceptives. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/maternal.shtml

Tags: , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
← Older Comments
  • hosertohoosier

    I think there is a case against emphasizing family planning/contraception on its merits. The problem is not that women in the developing world are either too poor to exercise family planning, nor is it that they are irrational baby-making machines. A first problem is a lack of women's rights in many developing countries. You need education and female empowerment before you start handing out condoms, etc. In the short term, it may be easier to work with existing values rather than against them.

    Look at USAID's report on why Uganda was successful in the 90's (http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/… especially pages 9-10. Condoms were distributed across Africa by aid programs in the 90's, but Uganda stood out as a success because of behavioral changes.

    The second problem is economic. If you are a farmer (or a farmer's wife) in a developing country you need to provide for your retirement. Having fewer children is dangerous because of high child mortality rates, and because, in general, it means fewer sons to provide for you. Yes, in the aggregate this makes the country worse off (less capital and natural resources per head), but it is rational at the micro level (it is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons). You need an economy that is on the path to development before family planning will work, without extreme levels of repression.

    Finally, there is the issue of reach. If every other country emphasizes family planning, that is actually a good argument not to emphasize it. Presumably there are countries that deny or limit funding because of opposition to birth control/abortion. Excluding an abortion/contraception pledge will get money to countries that would otherwise turn it down. Even among those that do accept aid, you have to remember that religious groups in recipient countries are often highly influential. Adopting policies that alienate aid workers from central figures in a rural community is a strategy that will fail.

  • Dan

    According to Stockwell Day, "if you look at somebody becoming sexually active in Grade 8, by the time they hit Grade 12 they've got a 100-per-cent chance of that condom failing on them." He said this is because people overlook theww true statistics.

    So why would we send the developing world condoms that create a false sense of safety when we know that there is a 100 per cent chance that at some point those condoms will fail? Seems kind of cruel no?

    • Greg

      Oh well, if Stockwell Day says it then, the Niagara river must flow south.

      • Holly Stick

        Is that what his Sea-doo suit was made of? It didn't do him any good.

      • sakel1m

        Thanks Paul for a detailed condemnation of the myopic policies of the TALIBAN-ON-THE-HILL PARTY OF CANADA!

        It is tragic that this government's regressive agenda will cause the deaths of millions of girls and women in the third world–infected with AIDS and bearing children as result of incest, gangrapes and ignorance of family planning.

        Perhaps Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should teach Harper that women's health cannot be divorced from family planning and contraception. I am sure that what that socialist rag THE ECONOMIST called him ("ruthless tactician with no respect for democratic institutions") will make even this neanderthal receptive to Clinton's 'lesson'!

        It's a shame for Canada to be governed by this bunch of mediocre Dark Ages dropouts…our very own Taliban-on-the-Hill now making policy labeled "Canadian"!!! Incredible. But truly tragic for Canadian women and democracy, as well as Canon's regressive ideology that passes as 'foreign policy'. Bart Stupak would be proud of our boys on the Hill…

    • kcm

      And not sending condoms is going to help?

      • Dan

        I was trying to be sarcastic, but on second read it does kind of seem like I agreed with him. Not to mention my inability to spell the word "the" correctly.

  • Jacques

    I can't believe that harper has does this now, before he gets his majority (which will now be even more in doubt.) A taste of things to come from this social conservative "progressive" conservative party. Can we go back to calling them the Canadian Reform Alliance Party?

  • Eva

    Why are the Conservatives so against proving condoms and birth control in foreign aid? Do they not understand it prevents the spread of disease?!

  • BobbyB

    This should be an election issue! If Harper wants to avoid/pretend/hide/deny the facts and not admit that abortions done right are legal as done here in Canada or that women do not have the right to choose what they want done with their bodies as is done here in Canada or that family planning such as the use of contraceptives as are available here in Canada and fully supported by many Canadians are not right then let him go at it. Let Harper convince Canadians that the family planning and abortion laws and the rights of women practiced here in Canada are wrong or that they are not right to be allowed in other countries if those countries want them. Yep, go ahead. Let's hear it from Harper and the Conservatives. Say it out loud to the Canadian electorate that what is done in Canada should not be done in other countries! What hypocrites them there Conservatives are!!!

  • Ode2jo

    First the Cons said these women needed fresh water, later I heard these women needed food. What good is fresh water and food if you die in childbirth from an unwanted pregnancy? What good is water and food if you cannot practice birth control, or get a safe abortion? The whole picture has to be covered, women need a whole package of care, that way they will live to raise those children and give them the tools to carry on. This care has to come in a whole package or we are wasting lives again. We have no idea what horrors these women face, so we as the aid givers must be open to giving them all the help to protect the lives of women and children.. Bev Oda and the Cons just want to put their ideology on this, disregarding the actual needs of the people they say they want to help. Canada has usually given aid with an open hand, now we have Harper and his Reform, Alliance take on what type of aid we will give, not a very realistic approach. Next thing you know, it will be faith-based aid, or will Canada do the right thing and really give aid to meet the needs of women and children in developing countries?

  • Betty Anne Field

    Politicians need to demonstrate concern and address the need for population control as it pertains to the family,nation, and world. They need to be cognizant about the ABC's of
    Sexuality – that somewhere between abstinence (unrealistic) and abortion
    (not generally acceptable) are a number of birth control measures that
    need to be employed by everyone – right,left rich or poor. While there is general support for international relief it should be conditional on the exercise of improved health practices, birth control and disease prevention. International relief will work only if there is reciprocal
    responsibility.
    Funds for foreign aid should be used as an incentive or reward for initiatives in population control and fertility rate reduction. We need to add some clarity to our charity.

  • gar

    Why is this such a great concern.we all know most of these countries have little or no democracy.The hypocrisy of some of the bloggers that we can save the world with condoms is so stupid.Men who carry condoms very rarely get around to put them on while thinking about what opportunity may permit hours after there on and when the opportunity is at its maximum it is not on their mind as a must..At that moment women without any education in sex really don't give a damn.Be Real you world savers

  • todd

    Family Planning was developed by the eugenicist Margret Sanger. She hated black people because she believed they were morally inferior. Since abortion was leagalised in the US in the 1970's Family Planning has placed abortion clinics in predominantly black inner city ghettos resulting in the murder of over eight million unborn children. Some of the posts here will accuse harper of having a pro life ideology but are unable to see the racist eugenicist ideology that family planning represents. The argument that abortion is some sort of health care and will save lives and that somehow this will increase the population is pure newspeak. I am utterly astonished that what appears to be educated people unthinkingly side with an ideology that assumes Africans are unfit to manage the size of their families and require the "enlightened " thinking of Family Planning to guide them out of their poverty. Im certain there are many more effective ways to help the people of Africa than to offer them abortion as a solution. All of your post s here have an underlying tone of racism and intolerance. One of these posts even implies any position other than that of FP (pro kill) as Dark ages thinking. Wake up and smell the blood running in the streets you "good Canadians". Our own population is shrinking because of liberal access to abortion one third of canadians conceived since 1970 have been "terminated". Why do you think we are having an economic depression? How will a minority of tax payers support a pension plan for retired workers. If you have read this far and not blown a liberal gasket then please do your research dig a little. The easy solution is not always the morally right one. four decades of scapegoating innocent defenseless lives is enough. Wake up assholes.

  • http://www.premieretreeservices.com tree removal company

    Hey, thanks for sharing these links. Been looking everywhere for this.

  • http://www.forextraderforums.com/ Forexforums

    what is the difference between health insurance and a health plan?

← Older Comments

Previous

Next

From Macleans