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

Maternal health: What does "no debate on abortion" mean?

by Paul Wells on Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:42pm - 72 Comments

Well, everyone was so chuffed after Question Period, because at last the government had got its message straight viz-a-viz the whole maternal health initiative!

To wit: “We are not closing the door to any option, and that includes contraceptives,” the prime minister said in so many words. Bev Oda said precisely the same words: “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.”

Got it. No doors closed, including to contraception. But what about abortion? Here, too, the language was peculiar and meticulously deployed. Harper: “But we do not want a debate, here or elsewhere, on abortion.” Oda: “And as we have been saying all along, we are not opening the abortion debate.”

Well, what the hell does that mean?

Julie O’Neill’s story, the second one I link above, seems to take “we do not want a debate on abortion” to mean “we do not want abortion.” That would certainly be one way to read it, probably the obvious way. In fact John Ibbitson’s story, the first linked above, says that’s how Lawrence Cannon reads it: Ibbitson says that on one of the chat shows later this afternoon, Cannon “insisted that this government would not fund new family planning initiatives that include the option of abortion, though other G8 governments might choose to do otherwise.”

You’ll forgive me for not taking Lawrence Cannon’s interpretation of anything as reliable.

Rather, I think this is more telling. At least since 2005, when Stephen Harper says he does not want to re-open the debate on abortion, he has always meant he did not want to limit access to abortion where it is now available. See for yourself. “Throughout his political career, the prime minister has been clear on this issue,” Dimitri Soudas, Harper’s spokesman, said in December 2008. “We will not introduce or support legislation on abortion.”

In this story from the same time, he’s far more categorical:

“I’ve been clear throughout my entire political career. I don’t intend to open the abortion issue. I haven’t in the past. I’m not going to in the future. Yes, there will be people in the Conservative Party who wish I would and there are some in the Liberal Party who also wish I would. But I have not done that in my entire political career, don’t intend to start now. We have a lot of challenges in front of the country … That has to be the focus of government. And I simply have no intention of ever making that a focus, the abortion question a focus of my political career.”

On Jan. 18, 2006, Harper said, “I don’t want this Parliament to have an abortion debate.” I’m sure industrious readers can find other examples. I can find no instance where Harper spoke of avoiding an abortion debate to mean restricting abortions where they are now provided.

Today, in prepared and rehearsed lines used by himself and another minister, Harper used the same language he has always used when he was setting out to disappoint his pro-life base while seeking to calm pro-choice voters.

I take the prime minister to be saying he will contemplate any accord that includes access to contraception or abortion. But I don’t think it’s possible to be certain, so I think he will have to be asked again.

Tags: abortion, confusion, maternal health, Stephen Harper

More by Paul Wells

Eva

And you should be the one to ask him
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

in combination with PW's earlier posting on where his G8 associates sit, this reading likely makes the most sense. it does not anger the base by making it obvious straight away that he is prepared to accept abortion will be part of the package. it also does not close off the very real possibility that he will be pushed to make this the case by the rest of the group.
Rob H

Abortion is not birth control it is the killing of a foetus. You can argue forever about whether a foetus is a human being if you want, but the fact is it is human. The law may allow it to be killed but don't pretend it isn't human.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Thanks for the clarification. Cause I was really wondering what everyone was talking about.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

That is a very astute observation and an entirely plausible thesis. I beg to differ, however.

When Harper has used this turn of phrase in the past it has, as Wells points out, always been in an effort to quiet pro-life members of his base while disappointing them. However, this week's events were not precipitated by pro-life agitation. Rather, the government had let it be known that abortion would not be included, and in response to Opposition and media questioning on the subject Harper gave his stock response.

In short, I think he uses this response to quiet anyone who is agitating about abortion. In the past that's been his base. In this case, it's his opponents. He is essentially saying "I'm not going to do what you want, and I'm not going to discuss it."

Of course, I may be letting my interpretation be coloured by wishful thinking.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

That's why I think he needs to be asked again. And unfortunately, Commenter Eva, I don't get as many chances to put questions to the PM as the MPs facing him do.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I'd expect nothing less from a good journalist.

http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

If Harper would talk to journalists…

http://twitter.com/RamaraMan @RamaraMan

I women has the right to choose…. period! That means having a right to the medical services required to support that choice! Those opposed have the right not to avail themselves of these services.

I'm quite certain a PMSH majority in parliament would threaten this choice for Canada's woman!

wilson

And just how would a majority Cons govt take away a women's right to choose?
The Supreme Court has already thrown out the law we did have.

We are lawless, and it is the Provinces that are dictating when and if abortions are performed,
for example, in Saskatoon no abortions are performed after the 12th week……the practice varies from province to province.

Why would PMSH take away Provincial rights and on top of that divide the country over something that is ticking along just fine,
except when Liberals want to fearmonger because they are down in the polls??????

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Did I drink something funny? You are coming across as sane!
I even gave you a thumbs up….

JamesHalifax

I agree…I'm pro-choice. I also think that they should pay for it themselves….along with the fella who put them in that position.

I still think the $1 condom is the best option however, as opposed to the $750 abortion.

Curious thought……..ever wonder how the NDP can be opposed to "private-for-profit" health care on one hand, and yet go to the wall for Morgentaller clincs…which, are in fact, "private-for-profit" health care clinics?

Hmmm…what's that called when someone holds two conflicting views, and sees no difference between them?

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

…possibly because many hospitals, Catholic ones for instance, will not offer abortions, thus leaving women in various cities/regions with no access to a legal option. In communities where the religious hospital is the only option, it's less expensive to have a private clinic offering a publicly funded procedure than to pay for bus tickets and hotel accommodations.

JamesHalifax

McMorgantalers…….

Over 100,000,000 severed.

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

No actual argument then? Righto, point won.
JamesHalifax

M_A_N

I actually agreed with you…in my own way. I'm pro-choice and I don't care where a woman gets an abortion. I just don't want to pay for it.

My point is that the NDP can't have it both ways. In areas where there is access to abortion at non-denominational hospitals, the NDP still insists we pay private abortion clinics to perform abortions, but god forbid you want to have a knee replacement at a private clinic.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

Pro choice eh?
JamesHalifax

Yes.

I'm not what you would call a "God-fearin" man………just a greedy one. Pay for them yourselves.
Holly Stick

Well if you are going to refuse health care to one gender, then refuse health care to the other, as in No treatment for prostate cancer for you.
http://intensedebate.com/people/BigBlueWave SUZANNE

The difference is that pregnancy is not a lethal condition. Cancer is.
Holly Stick

In some cases pregnancy is a lethal condition. Like that nine year old impregnated with twins by her stepfather. And the priests excommunicated her mother for saving the child's life by aborting the foetuses which would have killed her.
John

the case of the nine year old was very misleading in the media. That girl in brasil went to mutliple doctors before she found one that actually said her health was at risk, if she was actually at risk the church would not have excommunicated the mother. I realize that that is a rare and tough case though.

Most abortions are on women in their 20s and early 30s who are healthy and carrying healthy babies. Rape accounts for only 1%
Holly Stick

I don't believe you have any credible source for that.

Christen

At what point in their lives do you believe women should receive the right to choose? I'll bet all the little women who have been aborted would have chosen otherwise.

shouldIsellyourwheat

It means that there is enough work to go around. Not everyone in the G8 has to do the same thing. There are many aspects to maternal and children's health. If France or Britain wants to concentratra on family planning on contraception, Harper has no problem with that. Harper will likely chose something like vaccines and vaccinations for women and children as Canada's focus of the G8 effort. Let every country focus on providing the resources, organization, and leadership for one particular aspect of women's health.

Unlike Chretien and Martin's massive failure to get any generic AIDS drugs to Africa, because they chickened out when it came to implementation because they didn't want to offend European and American multinational drug companies.
http://unambig.com Adrian MacNair

The Libs have very unethically tried to cram abortion debate in the back door, and the government has every right to ignore [yet another] this red herring.

Jan

I guess the adult conversation about maternal health will have to be conducted without this government's participation.
pdpd

I'm sorry, but this isn't true at all. The conservatives decided on this issue as their g8 centerpiece, and the opposition parties gave them lots of heads-up that this was an issue given that prior UN white papers on maternal health have highlighted family planning (which these plans have agreed includes access to abortion).

The NDP, Bloc, and Liberals all gave the Conservatives lots of time to come out and say "oh, yeah, we always meant what you meant" in regards to contraception and abortion, but Oda was repeatedly sent out to spout vague stuff that amounted to abortion being out of the program. At every step Bennett et al. tried to get Oda and Harper to simply agree to the standard wording of whatever document (exact name eludes me) that the UN and WHO is setting as the maternal health program.

There never was any "abortion debate," until Harper and the conservatives tried to simultaneously impress both a)women voters and b)their base, which is, er, a curiously stubborn challenge.

Holly Stick

Harper was even more dishonest than that:

"Stephen Harper signed on to the G8 leaders' document in Italy last year calling for improvements to maternal health that specifically included contraception and reproductive health services…"

So when his mouthpieces turned around and said there would be no contraception included, Harper was betraying his word given to all of the other G8 countries. He lies to everybody.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It really is a red herring. Even Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin said that it would be a shame to allow the abortion debate to hijack efforts on maternal and child health. Unfortunately, this hasn't deterred the OLO from trying to reopen it.

Holly Stick

Martin was actually furious at Harper:
"…The Prime Minister's decision now, says Mr. Martin, “is the most regressive policy decision we have seen in Canada in the effort to reduce HIV AIDS.”

“The failure to do this will result in millions of preventable deaths from this disease and will leave a sea of orphans,”…"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/…

double nickel

Nice to see you using your real name Adrian. You're making progress.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

I believe Harper means exactly what he says. He doesn't want to open the debate on it. He's going to shut up and keep his head down no matter which way it goes.

Why? Because it's a no win situation. Supporting a pro-life position would please his base immensely, but he's already got their votes and it wouldn't gain him many others outside his base. Supporting a pro-life position may gain him some from outside his base, but he'd lose a good chunk of his base in the process.

So, going by the metric of Harper's main goal is to stay in power, he will do whatever he can to keep this issue dead in the news — no changes to status quo, whatever status quo is.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

That's a good analysis, but if his main goal is to stay in power and keep this issue out of the news then why did he let it be known that the government would not be funding abortion in the first place? He could have left it at "maternal health initiative" with all the ambiguity contained in that phrase, and without adding detail it's entirely possible no one would have noticed.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

He didn't. Ignatieff was the one who brought it up initially, remember? http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=25…

Harper's comments, again, were that he didn't want to talk about it.

burlivespipe

I don't think Harper should be allowed to skate through with an opaque answer, nor should Thiwim. Upon announcing Harper's so-called maternal world health concern, both Oda and Cannon reiterated that abortion was not part of the equation. Harper did not come out and make a clarification, and considering this is the most expensive PMO Canada's ever had, I doubt that they'd be letting rogue ministers throwing the Great One's own intention down a rabbit hole unless he supported, in fact, rubber stamped it.
Check out articles from mid-February and there are quotes that counter your 'It's ignatieff who did it first' moonwalk…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

He did. First he apparently ruled out funding abortion in the package, and then after the Liberal brouhaha about it he let both Cannon and Oda state that the doors were closed to abortion in this initiative.

Margaret

Bev Odious is more like it. "Not opening the abortion debate" means that they will not contribute to access to abortion in other countries, and that there is to be no discussion on the fact. I would take it a bit further and say that they'll be trying to remove access to abortion in Canada; and there will be no discussion on that either. They don't want it open to debate, because they don't want to be watched.

JamesHalifax

Ahh…margaret.

Spoken like a true fear-monger. You're such a good Liberal.

Jan

it's a bit late for that. He chose the topic. How could he not know contraception and safe abortions were not part of the solutions proposed. The international press is onto it now. Keeping his head down is not an option.

kcm

In the light of paragraph 8.25 of the Programme of Action of the "International Conference on Population and Development, which 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 [16] as a major public health concern and to reduce the recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family-planning services"

From a Liberal perspective Harper should be asked/pushed on whether he fully supports all aspects of the conference on population and developement, and not merely get to hide behind the ambiguity of "i don't want a debate on abortion". If PW is correct that Harper means:"… he will contemplate any accord that includes access to contraception or abortion". Then there is political advantage to be had here, not to mention helping to clear up an ambiguity that enables him to sit on the fence.

burlivespipe

Harper wants to make this 'don't ask, don't tell' camoflage issue; funny thing is, just as he's concerned about the possible centre votes he could lose by standing up for his own principles, I've already heard from two right-wing friends who are cheezed off that he isn't defending the christian-right's angle that abortion should be eliminated. Both said they would vote against him if he's gone 'Liberal' on this item, more so than his 'beyond Liberal' fiscal finnangling.
Of course, two people don't make a trend…

kcm

Exactly why he should be smoked out. In all likeihood he'll take the moderate postion, which is good for a number of reasons, one of which is it potentially loses him support on the right.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

The University of Toronto's John Kirton said it best:

The Canadian Coalition for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health includes Action Canada for Population Development, CARE Canada, Plan Canada, RESULTS Canada, Save the Children Canada, World Vision Canada and UNICEF Canada.

Mr. Kirton hosted a conference of these and other enthusiasts on the eve of Harper's announcement.

He condemns Mr. Ignatieff on grounds he has needlessly politicized a non-partisan issue to try to reawaken fears that Mr. Harper would take away abortion rights.

"Stephen Harper has been prime minister of Canada for four years and he hasn't done anything to stop abortion at home or abroad," Mr. Kirton said.

"I think it was unworthy of Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada. Some things I think should be beyond political partisanship and I can think of few causes more compelling than this one."

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=25344…

Ted

Missing the point.

The Conservatives came out with a vague plan on maternal and child health. The vagueness and surprise of the announcement left a ton of questions unanswered. These questions are being raised, as they should. As usual when the Conservatives introduce a policy for optics or to try to get good headlines, they were caught flat-footed and have changed their position – or, to give them some benefit of the doubt, changed what they have said about their position – and so it is imminently fair to press them further to clarify.

The biggest question to me remains unanswered: if a 3W country provides abortion services at its one major hospital, for example, will Harper provide that hospital with maternal funding, will he try to earmark it or will he prohibit any funding at all.

As you noted yesterday, general funding is still indirect funding of abortion. Is Harper going to go down that far? That is not "opening up the debate on abortion"; it is clarifying whether Harper is changing longstanding Canadian foreign policy or not.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

To elaborate on that question: Wells put up a post yesterday about 1995 Beijing Platform on foreign aid to which Canada is a signatory and which states no foreign aid will dictate that abortion must be performed, that is for the local government to decide. But beyond that, whether abortion is legal or not, there are a whole bunch of maternal health issues to address that have no bearing on whether you support or oppose abortion: "All governments organizations [...] to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion as a major public health concern.

jarrid

Abortion has been a non-issue politically in this country since the Senate failed to pass House of Commons legislation in response to the Supreme Court's 1988 decision striking down the previous legislation. The absence of legislation has been the status quo for over 20 years, yup 20 years.

The political left likes to exploit this non-issue as a bogeyman in a vain attempt to portray the Conservative Party as having a secret social conservative agenda. The media, like Paul Wells for example, likes to aid and abet these increasingly futile efforts to paint the Conservative party as beholden to "social conservatives."

Remember PW's take on the Canada's increasingly pro-Israel position? He said that position indicated that the Conservative Party were being controlled by "social conservatives."

I guess you can keep trying Paul, and keep asking those questions about that issue that troubles the political left and its crusaders in the Parilamentary Press Gallery – the elaborate hidden conspiracy of the Conservative Party of Canada to foist abortion restrictions on an unsuspecting Canadian public. Keep up the good work Paul, the national public interest no doubt hangs in the balance.

kcm

The issue is foisting abortion restrictions on unsuspecting third world countries genius.

JamesHalifax

Ummm…folks, lets remember one thing. Every time a bill has come before that house that would limit or restrict abortion in the country…..it has come from the Liberals.

this debate is not right or left.
MJH

Abortion is so emotionally loaded that any government will avoid raising it as an issue!! What is so hard to understand Paul?
mgriffin

Mr. Harper's message is in a word "Mr. Harper". As long as he can stand there sporting that wooden grin, it's simply not about solutions, innovations, or policy, it's about "Mr. Harper". How does a government claw their way to stand on international podiums committed to the notion that contraception and abortion are irrelevant, verboten and best ignored. Some may imagine the improvement of circumstances in nations where suffering is king had this government offered half the measure of outspoken support afforded Israel on matters of grim reflections of affliction. What bobs to the surface is that key support groups espouse interests that are distasteful, callous and down right cruel and must remain cloaked in rhetoric or as this prime minister calls it "transparency, openness and accountability".
Bill Simpson

Talk about a wedge issue! Of all the health issues surrounding childbirth in the third world, access to abortion is about as significant as access to cosmetic surgery. Millions are suffering from what we would regard in a our local hospital as trivial and easily treatable problems, and all we can do is stand and bicker about what Harper thinks about abortion!

If this is what parliament is going to do, I would recommend prorogation again!

kcm

I guess all those stats floating around here re: the benefits of unsafe abortion in the third world are just BS? I don't know where it ranks, but somewhere around cosmetic surgery sounds like a bizarre assertion to me.

JamesHalifax

How about this….

If you are 26 years old, poor, living in a shack and can't afford to feed yourself and your 8 kids……..don't have any more. Stop F$%king.

If that means you have to castrate the dude who keeps getting you knocked up…..then bring out the machete.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

[cont.]
[...] Women who have unwanted pregnancies should have ready access to reliable information and compassionate counselling. [...] In circumstances where 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."

Is Harper going to ban any funding for such maternal health services or not. This has nothing to do with your view on abortion and is certainly not a red herring as much as Harper would like to govern without scrutiny.

kcm

It's also naive politically speaking, this is a wedge issue for libs. Embarrassng Harper on the right is perfectly legit. Does anyone believe Harper wouldn't exploit a similarly divsive issue among libs or the left in general. It' stinks, but it's how the game is played, and no-one plays i better than Harper right now.

Joops

I'm not sure this is as much about embarrassing Harper as it is ensuring that Canadian policy is not going down the route of the Global Gag Rule, which was immensely damaging to women's reproductive health care in the developing world. It seems to me that unlike Bev Oda, the three opposition parties have actually done the research and understand that the international development/foreign aid/women's health experts are pretty unequivocal in their support for access to full reproductive health care. The problem, then, is that if the Harper government are in favour of denying access to full reproductive health care and want to quietly institute a Canadian version of the Global Gag Rule, their policy would contravene agreements that we have signed and would, in the end, hurt women in developing countries.
Joops

Just to add to above: Perhaps I'm being naive in assuming this is less about politics and more about policy…

JamesHalifax

Given the expense and manpower for an abortion…….what about giving out the "abortion pill" and teaching women to take one after they have (or are forced to have) sex?
Hubby needn't know what wife #3 is doing.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BigBlueWave SUZANNE

Actually, I think you're talking about the "Morning After" Pill. That has a relatively high failure rate.

Abortion pills are very labour intensive because they require multiple visits to a physician and often fail and require a surgical fix.

Joops

Wrong on all counts, SUZANNE, but thanks for playing the anti-choicer game.
Holly Stick

And SUZANNE can point you to all sorts of anti-choice websites to back up her statements, but no credible medical studies.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BigBlueWave SUZANNE

From sexualityandyou.ca:

"Emergency contraception is not as effective as other methods of birth control that are used regularly. "

http://www.sexualityandu.ca/faqs/index_e.aspx?cid…

Re: Chemical abortion, this description of chemical abortion is from the website of the Mogentaler clinic in Montreal

"# Requires 2 to 5 visits
# May take up to 4 to 5 weeks to expel the pregnancy (85% abort within two weeks)
# Requires curetage in 3-10% of cases due to incomplete evacuation or heavy bleeding"

Admittedly, it doesn't have to be a physician who starts the process, as nurses can start it off, but eventually you do get checked out by a doctor.

It's very labour intensive for the mom.

Holly Stick

From your link: "…Emergency contraception is effective in preventing pregnancy the majority of the time, from 75-97%, depending on the method you use…"
Not quite what you said, is it.

From this page:
"…You should not rely on EC as your primary method of birth control, as it's less effective than regular contraceptive methods and offers no protection against sexually transmitted infections…"

http://www.sexualityandu.ca/adults/contraception-…

I will give you credit since the website appears to be neutral.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Thwim raises a good point that about whether the PM is taking into account the reaction of the so-called Conservative "base".

I would just like to point out that while it might be aimed at one of the "bases" of the CPC (i.e. social conservatives), it most certainly does not resonate with other parts of the CPC base – namely those who are fiscal conservatives.

The core supporters of the CPC represent a number of interest groups, not all of which would place themselves in the social conservative camp.

And, incidentally, it should not be forgotten that there are also a good number of Liberals who are social conservatives.
TicTok

At a meeting with the African Union a week ago, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonard Edwards, and the Prime Minister’s personal representative, said that they will support the full package of Maternal Health for Africa and the summits. At a civil society meeting shortly after that, groups assembled were assured that the Canadian government would, again, support the complete package. Complete package means condoms, so why are the Cons telling Canadians something different?

While confusion reigns in Ottawa over this issue, African countries are receiving full assurance that contraception will be included in any Canadian aid design for child and maternal health. So why (again) are the Cons telling Canadians something different then they told the international G8 just a week ago? Think people, think!
TicTok

At a meeting with the African Union a week ago, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leonard Edwards, and the Prime Ministers personal representative, said that they will support the full package of Maternal Health for Africa and the summits. At a civil society meeting shortly after that, groups assembled were assured that the Canadian government would, again, support the complete package. Complete package means condoms, so why are the Cons telling Canadians something different?
Holly Stick

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Well…

A) I think it was natural and inevitable that the abortion topic has arisen, given the shifty and hamhanded way the government responded to the "no contraception" questions.

B) Now that the word has come down that there will be no new abortion debate — come down clearly and forcefully, compared to most recent announcements, and demonstrating relative consistency with past action — I believe Team Harper sincerely has no intention of reopening it.

So it was fair to bring it up, and it's fair to drop it now that it's been adequately answered. Doesn't mean anyone should let up on the contraception angle, though.
http://www.spartanmoving.com/ San Francisco Movers

I think only the women is having all the right what to do and what not to do. There should not any second or third party to decide what should happen. She is the source and she has to take some action on what must happen in the future.
http://www.1chicagomovers.com/ Chicago mover

We are not closing the door to any option, and that includes contraceptives, the prime minister said in so many words. Bev Oda said precisely the same words: 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.

I don't think so.
http://www.everlastwelders.ca/ arc welder

Well, everyone was so chuffed after Question Period – well said.