Be fruitful and multiple lie

Ah yes. The hate mail continues to pour in over today's treeware take on the Harper government's  It-Makes-Me-Gag-Rule, its refusal to connect the dots between contraception and maternal healthcare.

For two months now, the Conservative mouthpiece on all this, International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda, has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the need for women to have choices, let alone suggest that the HarperCons will back family planning support in its oh-look-we-discovered-women maternal healthcare initiative.

When asked about support for contraceptives and family planning in an interview last week, Ms. Oda said: "In order to maintain our focus, again our focus is on maternal and child health and mortality rates.

"We want to make sure that mothers, pregnant women, are healthy and can have safe births, and that the birthing process is made safer because if you look at the number of births during the actual birthing process, that's where a number of maternal deaths happen," she added.

"We also want to make sure when babies are born, they are born as healthy as possible so that they can live through their early age, up to the age of five, with as strong and good health as possible."

Plenty of background here. And here.

Oda's unwavering inability to concede on contraception has been repeated by Status of Women Minister Helena Guergis and just the other day by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.

It's been a political firestorm, which got diverted by the abortion debate -- which took the focus off contraception, a necessary component of any maternal healthcare program. 

The government's ridiculous and backward stance started getting international attention this week. Examples are here, here, here and here.

Extraordinary events in Canada over the last couple of days with the potential to embarrass mightily the G8, meeting in Ontario in late June. The host government's "legacy initiative" is on maternal and child health. The entire GB is expected to sign up to a package intended to save the lives of women and their dependent young children. But - and prepare to rub your eyes now - Stephen Harper and his ministers appear to want to exclude family planning from it. And it's not even just unsafe abortion (which kills thousands every year) that appears to be in their minds.

Then, on Thursday, wha ... ? Spinarama? Cover your buttism?

Said the PM in Question Period:

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

So why did you allow your ministers to say what they did for as long and as often as they did?

Here is today's column, in toto, with some added linkage.

Did Prime Minister Stephen Harper put a condom instead of a thinking cap on his head when, two months ago, he announced his now internationally ridiculed policy on "maternal and child health" that he's going to promote at the coming G8 summit?

 How else to explain his intransigence on women's access to family planning – as if a mother's ability to have no more babies than she can feed, clothe and protect has nothing to do with either's health?

Has he never heard the expression AIDS orphan? Obstetric fistula? High-risk pregnancy?

And we're not even talking about abortion here. This is about the pill, IUDs, diaphragms – and education.

Sure, Harper appeared to flip-flop Thursday by saying he's not "closing doors" -- but so far they've been slammed shut.

For all the statistics Harper has spouted on the 2 million women and children who die every year due to lack of proper care during pregnancy and delivery, has he not looked at a medical book instead of the Good Book?

Because, make no mistake, his dismissal of good maternal health practice is purely ideological, not gynecological.

Consider the support this contraception-free initiative has received from religious groups that are anti-reproductive rights.

For example, both the hardline LifeSiteNews and R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, which back every anti-choice move any Conservative MP makes, no matter how unscientific or misogynistic, are cheering on this "maternal health" policy.

Never mind that doctors and medical groups, not to mention health workers in the field, contradict the HarperCon position.

On Thursday, the Ottawa-based Federation of Medical Women of Canada, was the latest to denounce the government on this issue. "By excluding family planning, there will be even more pressures on already vulnerable health systems, devastating consequences on any attempts to implement maternal health programs, and tragic loss of millions of lives that could otherwise have been saved," its member physicians said in a statement.

They were reacting to what Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Tuesday during a meeting of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, in response to questions on the direct correlation between access to contraception and women's deaths.

"This (policy) does not deal in any way, shape, or form with family planning," said Cannon. "Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives."

What's worse is that, as Cannon would later suggest to reporters, he personally is pro-choice.

Then there are International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda and Status Of Women Minister Helena Guergis – neither of who has ever practised birth control, right? – who also parrot the party line.

Said Guergis in the status of women committee Monday, in reply to a question on what she will do for maternal and child health care, both here and abroad: "I will play whatever role it is that the Prime Minister is defining for me in this process, happily, and I'm very proud and honoured to be a part of that process."

Talk about A Handmaid's Tale.

As for Oda, on Wednesday she told the House that the government will be "providing clean water, vaccinations, better nutrition, as well as the most effective way (in) the training of health care workers and improving access for those women, that is what we are going to do."

Sure all that is important, but as one friend cracked on Facebook, "Dead women can't drink clean water."

Besides, research shows that when it comes to health care in impoverished nations, women – as they often are in everything else – are second-class citizens, always at the back of the line.

So, while improving the medical infrastructure will definitely help these societies as a whole, it may not do that much more for mothers and newborns.

Nice try, PM Harper.

But it's obvious: This is just a Trojan horse for your religious beliefs.

Couple things.

One, today Maclean's Paul Wells exhaustively unpacked Stephen Harper's right-ho politics. It is a must-read.

Two, it's been suggested to me by Facebook friend Alexandra Mandelis that the only family planning the HarperCons might support are condoms and the good ole rhythm method.

Now taking bets on how long before the HarperCons issue a statement saying that because they are not interesting in reopening the abortion debate, the only family planning devices their "signature" initaitive will include are all those that can't cause "very early abortions" - also called "abortifacients" by the anti-choice. "Abortifacient" methods include the Pill, emergency contraception, the patch and the IUD - all hormonal methods.

Alexandra is probably correct in her prediction

Consider the Pill, which prevents ovulation. True, every once in a huge while, mostly because a woman forgets to take her daily dose, an egg can slip by and get fertilized. The Pill would prevent that zygote from implantation, BTW.) But the risk of that is insignificant. Still, that doesn't stop the Pill Kills posse from shrieking that the Pill evil and kills babies.

Funny how they are more concerned about theoretical single-celled embryos than starving orphans who lost their mothers because their exhausted and undernourished bodies couldn't pump out that 10th baby.

Comments

[fern hill]

This issue has legs with ordinary voting Canadians of both sexes and all genders. In related news, the Libs plan to back the ReformaTories into a corner over contraception and oooooo, yes, abortion.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100319/Harper_Contra_100319/20100319/?hub=TorontoNewHome

[Elizabeth Pickett]

"Funny how they are more concerned about theoretical single-celled embryos than starving orphans who lost their mothers because their exhausted and undernourished bodies couldn't pump out that 10th baby."

As my mother used to say when indicating an ironic laugh, "Funny ha ha."

[Pamela Allard]

Antonia, thank you for your straight from the hip article and blog on the antics of the HarperCons re women's reproductive health. I saw some of the hateful comments spewed in response to your column this morning. Ignore the ignorant and keep up the good work in calling it as it is!

[M]

We'll be the laughing stock of the G8 with this position.

[Richard Ring]

Relatives in Sweden,where there are about the same number of women in Parliament as men, are shocked by the initial information they got on the subject of Canada's? position on contraception.But then a visitor who loves coming to Canada,found the lack of transparency in Ottawa"frightening,living as he does in a very open society where the coalition government works for...are you ready..the betterment of all citizens.
I sense the start of strong movement towards getting rid of Harper and his mostly ex Harris cronies. . About time. We should remind ourselves that the Cons. were elected by only some 25 % of Canadians who did or could have voted(a shameful 42 % could not be bothered;)Very poor and troubled Guatemala,where routinely 50 to 100 people are killed each election time, did better than that in voter turn-out...
But our antiquated first-past-the-post system(1 million Greens=0 seats in a true democracy?. Not in advanced countries) allows the party in power to control and subjugate so many aspects of government(Parliament,watchdogs++) that it will be tough to transcend today's petty partisan politics..and for Harper,so far,,winning way of governing. While we endure our falling image in the world and put up with,for example, being 25th of 25 countries studied by UNICEF(2008),passing in one(1) of 10 benchmarks in..child care. Tragic..as I see it. Just one basic rating,we bring up the rear in too many others. This will never change under Harper.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Oh yeah, Sweden. Politically correcting itself to death ....

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

[CanNurse]

GREAT, Fantastic, AWESOME column, Antonia!
Harper continues to embarrass Canada internationally, a new shame every week at least! The man IS an utter embarrassment to Canada & all Canadians, particularly women. We ARE becoming the laughing stock of the world - Is Stevo not aware of this?! WHEN will Canadians wake up?!

I'm sharing this column with everyone I know. And when I get tired (and I do get tired) of fighting for our freedoms & reputation back from this knuckle-dragger & his buddies, I'll re-read it myself. Thank you!

[Kate]

I'm so tired of feeling embarrassed and angry over the international face Canada now presents. Harper did not win a majority. Even without considering the voter turnout, he does NOT represent the majority of Canadians and he has no right to make such substantial changes to our century-old reputation for being concerned about the public good. I've been quiet too long and feel a kind of responsibility for allowing this to happen. No longer!

[M]

Shows how fragile democracy and freedom is and without vigilance, a free press, an engaged public stuff we take for granted can so easily be taken away. Pamela is right, we'll be the laughing stock of the G8 with this position, particularly since Harper signed on to an agreement at last year's G8 that specifically provided an accord would include family planning measures.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"I'm so tired of feeling embarrassed and angry over the international face Canada now presents"

I'm enjoying it. I'm looking forward to being an "ugly Canadian" abroad, with the pound at $1.50 odd, this summer, too.

Warts and all, the Harper government is, albeit gradually and partially, returning Canada to itself, and shedding the miasma of the Soviet-lite Trudeaupia (although they should have defunded about a hundred KAIROS equivalents by now).

Many people I talk to abroad LIKE the image Stephen Harper presents.

In short, we're annoying all the usual suspects. Good. And showing REAL leadership over the Middle East as well.

[Sarann]

I am so constantly appalled at the pro lifers. They will do anything to protect a foetus but never balk one moment at sending 18 year olds to war. It's all killing. Maybe that's why they are so intent on being pro life so someone can have cannon fodder provided when it is to their advantage. .

[bebo]

How many kids does Harper have? Cannon?

How many kids does Guergis have? Oda? "...neither of who has ever practised birth control, right?"

Without having to pry too deeply into their personal lives (and please don't - I don't need to know or want to know the details), I think we can have a pretty good idea of which MP's have benefited from some family planning of their own, presumably something a little more complicated than having a little rhythm.

How selfish, when you consider that the benefits of birth control in Canada, the benefits enjoyed by Harper et all are mainly financial, or maintaining a moral appearance (although single, professional mothers are more acceptable now - maybe not so much with MP's yet), or the ability to further a career, or just a simpler, more carefree lifestyle.

Very rarely in Canada does birth control make the difference between life and death of the mother or older siblings.

[Connie Donoghue]

I'm a feminist and a liberal and I disagree with Broadsides on this issue.

No woman anywhere wants her body as the site of a polemic battle between left and right, and the history of 'family planning' in several parts of the world has been so horrific to many families that it's still an issue with international-based maternal health/wellbaby programs in those countries and regions. Many regions have long had access to contraception and family planning resources, but income and social status prevent many from accessing anything but the most basic of services - 'here you go, here's your complimentary condom!'.

I think you're entirely closed-minded and unimaginative to meet the current debate with such '60ish ideas and arguments. If we actually pay attention to what *is* the text of the international reports we'd likely find the answers very readily. For eg, a woman who willingly goes hungry regularly to ensure that her family has one good meal a day IS NOT likely to knowingly participate in anything that even seems like terminating life.

Re-establishing the idea that the cornerstone of family health is the health of the female family-head seems to me to be both feminist in a very basic sense, and practical.

[Antonia]

Thanks Connie for your comment -- but I fail to see where the disagreement is.