Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The unavoidable issue

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, September 2, 2010 12:34pm - 0 Comments

The Globe’s Geoffrey York finds an unnamed aid organization which has received funds from the Canadian government and performs abortions in African countries where the practice is illegal.

The financing that it has received from the Canadian government in recent years is not for its abortion services, but for other health services that it provides. The agency, like a number of other health providers in Africa, has felt compelled to provide abortions at its clinics – despite the risk of jail for its staff – because the alternative for pregnant women can be death or maiming by dangerous backstreet practitioners.

Tags: abortion, Africa, foreign aid, maternal health

More by Aaron Wherry

Mike T.

I salute this brave organization!
Olaf

because the alternative for pregnant women can be death or maiming by dangerous backstreet practitioners

If Gaunilon was here, he'd probably point out that the proper article would be "an". As in "an alternative for pregnant women" would be a back alley baby-disappearing operation. Another would be to not have an abortion.

But he's not here, so carry on. Yay abortions!

PCJ

I'll gladly take his place on this issue!
Holly Stick

And then someone intelligent would point out to him that often a woman who cannot have an abortion will die. That is often the only choice. Abortion or death.

But Gunailon and other stupid people are too dishonest to face that cruel fact.

Olaf

I'm sure there would be something less productive for everyone involved than engaging you in an abortion debate, but nothing comes to mind presently…

Holly Stick

Especially since you would lose.

Olaf

It's not really a win or lose type thing, especially considering that I'm pro-choice-lite. Plus, I already know that everyone hates women and that women have no choice over whether or not they get pregnant and how if you don't get an abortion you die and how conservatives are evil and that abortion is an issue about cold hard facts and has nothing to do with morality, so I'm not sure what more I can learn from you.
Holly Stick

Go and read the articles by Geoffrey York and Elizabeth Payne.

And stop whining about how I argue; -you prefer Gaunilon repeatedly claiming that women who have abortions are baby murderers? Screw that.

Emily

Something else the govt made into an issue, when nothing needed to be said.

Mike T.

In fairness, didn't the Liberals want to ensure abortion funding in the aid package? In which case, you should probably have said the government should have "quietly agreed, and let it be done"? I am welcome to corrections if that wasn't the case.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Harper decided to abandon the anti-abortion base, and take a position along the lines of "We knew abortions were being done by these organizations, but since they were often going on in countries where the practice is illegal, we couldn't draw attention to it. It was Iggy who put these women in danger by making a big deal out of funding we were already quietly providing." Remember, Stephen's not above brazen lying, in fact he seems to like it.

Emily

The big fuss that was made was over 'maternal health' in the first place. As though we'd never done it before, but Harper was in a kindly mood, and seeking to get women onside.

Crit_Reasoning

The big fuss that was made was over 'maternal health' in the first place

It's amazing how easily you dismiss billions of dollars in new funding for maternal and child health initiatives in the third world.

Emily

We've done this for eons. It's not new.

Making a production of it was to get votes in Canada.
Crit_Reasoning

We've done this for eons. It's not new.

The difference, Emily, is one of scale. Instead of getting millions, these worthy initiatives are now getting billions from Canada and many other countries.
Emily

It was to get women voters onside and you know it.
Crit_Reasoning

Emily, you're talking about the motives and I'm talking about the outcome. Do you see the difference?
Olaf

Keep going Crit, you've almost explained something to Emily. I think she's starting to cave…
Crit_Reasoning

I feel like banging my head against my desk.
Olaf

Banging your head against your desk would be… hold on… carry the four… twelvety kazillion times more productive than what you're trying to do now.
Style

But we wouldn't get a squagillionth as much amusement…Go Crit!
Emily

You are talking about the raising or lowering of the amount we spend on foreign aid….something we have also always done.
Crit_Reasoning

Yes, and in this case we're raising a particular application of foreign aid by billions of dollars, and we're getting other countries to chip in as well. Do you see how something like this could be seen as "new"?
Emily

No.
Crit_Reasoning

Are you married to Mike T, by any chance?
Emily

Are you awake yet today?

Have some more coffee.
JustinWordswrth

I heard they divorced. Due to irreconcilable similarities.
Standing By

What was "new" here is that a Canadian PM was, for the first time ever, trying to inject right-wing anti-abortion politics into international development issues.

Previously, this had been the exclusive domain of the Bush GOP and the evangelical right-wing in the US, and the Catholic church.

It was new for a Canadian PM to be abandoning our usual moderate position on such matters, and to be leading the charge from the right.
Emily

That I'll agree with.
Holly Stick

And soon we can hope to have a government and a Prime Minster with more wisdom and less ideology.
Emily

That I'll also agree with.
Style

I have to agree with Emily on this. Canada is always changing the amount it spends on various things. Why would anyone pay attention to changes in spending levels? Like, for example, we used to spend some money on overseas abortion and now we're trying to spend no money on it. Can you imagine how silly it would be to get excited over that?
Emily

Just Harper talking through his touque again.
Style

Let me take a moment to type "eyeroll" right here: Eyeroll.

bergkamp

"The organization does not want to be identified publicly because its abortion services are provided without legal authorization, but the practice is widely known in some of the African countries where it operates. The practice exposes the gap between anti-abortion laws and daily realities across the continent."

I think this was the more interesting paragraph. The abortions are illegal – unbelievable. Canadians are killing third world babies against the government's, and the locals, wishes. Liberals and their love of eugenics.

"The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." CS Lewis

Emily

Death by stoning is legal in Iran, but we intervene there as well.
Holly Stick

"…Canadians are killing third world babies…" No, Canadians are aborting fetuses in order to save the lives of women and children. Often they are also saving the woman's ability to bear healthy children later in life.

You would realize that if you actually read all of Geoffrey York's intelligent article and thought about it.

bergkamp

"No, Canadians are aborting fetuses in order to save the lives …. "

It is too bad aborted babies can read this nonsense and discover that we killed it in order to save it's life.

Emily

It's too bad YOU can't read.

'….to save the lives of women'.

Holly Stick

bergkamp is incapable of realizing that when the mother dies because she could not get a safe abortion, her children are likely to die as well

Lord Kitchener's Own

Canadians are killing third world babies

Technically, if one believes "babies" are being killed, we're funding the ability of OTHER PEOPLE to kill babies. We're not even paying for the hit. At worst, we're paying for some unrelated activity, and thereby allowing the organization to spend other money to pay for the hit.

The "third world" bit confuses me a little. Given that by your definition, Canadians are killing first world babies, the fact that this story involves the third world seems sort of irrelevant.

bergkamp

"Given that by your definition, Canadians are killing first world babies … "

I am much more bothered by us exporting murder to other countries. It is one thing for Canadians to kill Canadians, it is quite another for Canadians to kill others even tho it is illegal in their countries.

I am believer in karma and Canada's, right now, is equivalent to that of being lice that lives in a cat's a**hole.

Holly Stick

",,,It is one thing for Canadians to kill Canadians, it is quite another for Canadians to kill others…" Isn't that special. How about killing civilians in Afghanistan? Is that ok?

bergkamp

Do you have evidence Canadian army is deliberately killing civilians or is that your feverish imagination?

If Canadian soldiers are purposely killing Afghan civilians than they absolutely should be brought before court martial and face murder charges.

TJCook

"Liberals and their love of eugenics."

See, for my money, Guanilon just can't hold a candle to bergy when it comes to sheer, offensive hyperbole.

bergkamp

" … comes to sheer, offensive hyperbole. "

Says the guy who claims Beck/Palin want to establish religious theocracy with slavery as its centrepiece all because they used the word 'honour' in their speeches.

TJCook

Ha! I assume you're talking about this post of mine: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/29/hundreds-of-th…

Ironically, in trying to defend your hyperbole, you've extrapolated my post to a hyperbolic extreme that bears no relation to what I said, nor to the article I linked to.

Besides, you're slipping. Everybody knows that you consider liberals to be racist eugenicists.

Crit_Reasoning

Thanks for your thoughtful rebuttal.
Mike T.

The bottom line is that the Harper government, against its stated intention, is providing money for an organization which provides abortions. Will it stop the funding or admit its policy is no longer effective? Or dissemble for weeks on end?

More money for the organization means more money for abortions, no matter what a project is earmarked for. D'uh. And since abortions are illegal in that country, it ain't like the allocation is going on their public records.

Crit_Reasoning

More money for the organization means more money for abortions, no matter what a project is earmarked for. D'uh.

Again, you're making a whole lot of assumptions for a guy who knows nothing about this except for what he just read in the article.

Mike T.

Basic financial and accounting principles. Sometimes charities name things specifically for show and for the benefit of specific donors, but at its heart it's all $ providing funding.

And how can we even be sure without a careful and complex SCREENING PROCESS, like con commenters said would never be needed?

I suspect you know this, which is why I am loath to give your argument anything more than scorn and cursory rebuttal.

Mike T.

SAnity prevailing would be providing funding for maternal health including access to abortion.

Duh/.

Style

Mike, we agree on that. We disagree on how we've ended up with Canada restricting this funding and what needs to be done to prevent those getting worse. I think a good start woudl be a Parliamentary motion to adopt the New Democrats' position as official Canadian policy (basically the UK postion where abortion is explicitly included as one of the items in maternal health).

bergkamp

" ….. Canada's aid spending would be devastating."

It would not be that devastating if it results in Canadians killing fewer babies than we do now.

Emily

Then stop bombing other countries, or invading them

Emily

Does it matter, since you didn't read it anyway?
Mike T.

If you say so, liar.
Mike T.

The naughty thing is providing abortions in countries where that is illegal.

Holly Stick

Terrible to be saving women's lives against the law.

PolJunkie

"The Globe’s Geoffrey York finds an unnamed aid organization which has received funds from the Canadian government and performs abortions in African countries where the practice is illegal."

Not for long, thanks to the Globe.

Emily

Africa's a big place, and loaded with aid groups.
bergkamp

" ….. but the practice is widely known in some of the African countries where it operates."

Globe has not revealed anything that is not already widely known, apparently.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Yes.
Emily

Canada cuts aid to Africa by millions. May 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/bann…

The only kind of recycling Harper does.
Stewart_Smith

It would seem that the criteria that has been applied is a rational one. i.e. the Canadian money is not to be used for abortions, but if you perform abortions with other funds so be it. Indeed, this was the best that could have been hoped for under the Conservatives and I can certainly live with it.

It is worth noting that a very different standard was applied to other types of foreign aid. From the R&D file, we know that any organization that in any way interacted with Hamas (i.e. they both attended a meeting) would be disqualified from support. This led to the real concern that any organization that was in any way associated with the delivery of safe abortions would be banned from any Canadian funding. If my memory is correct, Harper remained remarkably silent of this issue increasing the fear that there would be a very political agenda tied to the foreign aid ala George Bush.

Of course, we don't actually know yet what the position of the Conservative government ultimately will really be. As CR has noted, the amount of funding is enough that logistically the PMO could not vet every allocation. Now that the issue is in the public domain, I am certain the PMO will take a stronger interest in the details of the policy. I hope they continue with the status quo, but if they start getting flack from their base I fear the health of African mothers would come a distant second in their political calculations.

http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

It would seem that the criteria that has[sic] been applied is[sic] a rational one.

As with most CPC initiatives and parti pris, the criteria being used in this instance are indeed rational yet oddly inconsistent with criteria used in other instances.

Here, the CPC is refusing to provide financial support to the few African mothers who, solely because of their utter destitution, might wish to terminate what the CPC's so-cons (and I) would consider to be innocent life: doing so would be against CPC “principles”, we must understand. Right.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the CPC has provided uncritical support not only for NATO's tactics in the Afghan debacle but also, from a distance, for the Pentagon's tactics in the Iraqi catastrophe, which have led to the slaughter of innocents on a Biblical scale.

Thus, supporting surgical homicide performed upon a few is ethically unacceptable, yet supporting the criminally negligent mass homicide that sees squadrons of A-10 Warthogs fly strafing runs over villages and 155 mm howitzer batteries lobbing HE shells among women and children is ethically laudable.

Of course, CPC moral philosophers like Stock Day will seek to annul the appearance of inconsistency by speaking of the noble objectives of the Afghan mission, arguing that Afghan "nation building" [*cough*] is worth the routine dismemberment and shredding of civilian bodies, perhaps forgetting that abortion might seem to be equivalently worthwhile to a Congolese woman whose pregnancy follows her brutal and protracted gang-rape by rebel soldiers.

So, yes, the CPC's position is rational indeed—and, in classic CPC fashion, rationally cynical.

Jenn_

But this is an inconsistency that we've seen for years. For example, the number of people who are opposed to abortion AND support the death penalty.

http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

Yeah, but death-row inmates are bad people. Pashto kids caught in a burst of mini-gun fire spewing from the servo-platform of an Apache Longbow are not; they're just the unlucky inhabitants of a NATO free-fire zone. Nevertheless, the CPC is prepared to calculate their deaths as "acceptable losses", whereas the terminated foetus of an impoverished, gang-raped Burundian 14-year-old cannot be calculated as an acceptable loss.

It is upon that casuistic hook that the CPC wishes to hang its moral superiority over "relativists" such as we.
Crit_Reasoning

Many social conservatives oppose both. However, there's not necessarily any inconsistency between opposing one and supporting another.

http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

To get a precise sense of the ethical valencies at play in the policy prescriptions today's "conservatives" are prepared to espouse, I think reactions from the "right" to this story need to be set against their reaction to the recent arrival of the Tamil boat people.

For, make no mistake—“conservatives" just love cute Third-World babies, almost as much as Brangelina and Madonna do, and they will curl into foetal balls of despondency at the very thought of any of them being aborted (on our dime, if you please!).

Now, should any of those babies grow into emigrants seeking better lives in Canada, however, they will fully expect their government to send those ex-cute-Third-World babies back where they came from if possible or bomb their boats (as the Ottawa Sun despicably suggested) if necessary. The modish phrase is “moral clarity”, I believe.

Holly Stick

Well noticed.

frobisher

No snark intended, but perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a guide through the taxonomic ranking of conservatism.As the current definition seems to have, er…evolved.
Crit_Reasoning

Key sentence: The financing that it has received from the Canadian government in recent years is not for its abortion services, but for other health services that it provides.
Mike T.

There's little difference, esp. when it just goes into the same pot.

And if it isn't going into the same pot, you need a strict, careful and complex SCREENING PROCESS! DON'T YOU?!!! DON'T YOU?!!!