Shutting up -- or not

Blogging has been light lately because I've been tied up with stories on the Governor-General and  abortion -- including yesterday's f-word instructions from Senator Nancy Ruth. 

First, a word about that swear-word story. There was no "secret taping" by the Star. It was a conference open to the media and as it happened, when Sen. Ruth made her remarks, I was standing in full view of the room, media tag on, holding my tape recorder up to the speakers. It just happened that I was the only media person in the room; other news outlets chose to put their resources elsewhere yesterday. It's been interesting to see who gives the Star credit for the tape they're all quoting -- as readers of this blog will know, I'm a big fan of linking to other media, including the competition.  

But I digress. This post is about shutting up -- knowing when to do it and when to speak up. Nancy Ruth was offering her advice yesterday in the spirit of helpfulness and realism. She told the advocates that they risked a "backlash" from Prime Minister Stephen Harper if they kept up their campaign against Canada's anti-abortion stand on the world stage. On CBC's Power and Politics last night, Harper's old mentor, Tom Flanagan agreed.  Think about that for a bit -- serious people,  who understand this government and this prime minister,  are telling folks  that he's a vengeful sort. Hey, nice guys finish last. Look what happened to Stephane Dion. This is not a commendation of politics or the current style of leadership. 

Speaking of which, Michael Ignatieff is coming in for some criticism about being a blabbermouth -- not shutting up -- about whether the Governor-General's term should be extended. He was asked his advice and decided to go public with what he told the Secretary to the Queen. It is unusual, and risky. And as  Don Martin points out today, it doesn't do much for building the case that he'd respect confidences on the Afghan-detainee files. 

But there is also a case to be made for opening up this whole secret GG thing. Remember how frustrated we were about Michaëlle Jean's failure to explain why she granted Stephen Harper his controversial prorogation in late 2008? Note that Canadians seem to feel that Harper, in choosing her successor, should be paying attention to popular sentiment.  And Harper has shown his own populist streak in some of his dealings with the GG too, having a rather public spat over the business of who's head of state, for instance.  So we're probably seeing a more general unravelling of all this royal secrecy surrounding how the GG does her job, not just about her replacement.  Is that a good or a bad thing? It's probably worth discussing. 

And one more note about shutting up -- the Liberals' status of women critic, Anita Neville, was initially quite charitable about Senator Ruth's intervention at the aid-experts' meeting yesterday. She was in the room and prefaced her remarks about her fondness for Nancy Ruth. But by late in the day, Neville was quoted in a Liberal news release condemning the "bullying."  Why the change of heart? I'm discouraged to report that it's because the Liberals saw a chance to score some points, even if it meant twisting Neville's more nuanced understanding of what happened yesterday. 

So, to recap what we learned yesterday: if you have something to say in politics, make sure you don't tick off the Prime Minister, make sure you're not talking about the governor-general and for heaven's sake, avoid nuance. In other words, it's probably best to shut the f--- up. 

Comments

[Catherine]

Susan Delacourt, never shut the f--up.

Your voice is clear, consistent and needed.

And there seem to be too many journalists that are chasing the bright, shiny object...usually released from the PMO.

[bettie]

I don't see in the quote of Nancy Ruth that she said the backlash would be from the Prime Minister. Perhaps she meant a backlash from the public. Many are not happy that the Liberals have politicized this issue.

[woods]

Senator Ruth is in a position of power, supporting the party and leader of her choice (she could sit as an independent if she wanted) and she thinks women should be silent and ignore all the deaths from unsafe abortions! Exactly when does she think it is okay for women to give their opinions? Only when they happen to agree with the leader and party that Sen Ruth chooses to support? Well, in that, she is no different from Harper.

Ruth is as good an example of what is wrong with Harper as Harper is himself and she seems too clued out to even notice this fact! She's pitiful.

[cairwin]

Interesting observations, Ms Delacourt. What's distresing in all this commentary about the Senator's use of the f-word is how out of context many have taken it. The Star's current poll doesn't help matters in that regard, but it isn't the only culprit. More 'nuanced' accounts of events help us see the complexity of situations. The 'rejigging' of Anita Neville's reaction is troublesome too - if the Liberals are going to be the anti-bullying party it behooves them to *be*, well, anti-bullying.

[ck]

I did a post on this subject yesterday over at my blog, almost as soon as the story first came out in this paper. I confess to not knowing who Sen. Nancy Ruth really was; all I knew was it was some old Conservative senator, doing the boss's bidding. I mean, that is part of Stephen Harper's modus operendi; stifling mere mortals, especially what he considers to be "fringe" groups.

I also entertained (somewhat) the possibility that this was an ominous warning of the insidious to come; that the Boss man could well criminalize abortion here.

The thing is, whether or not we keep quiet, Stephen Harper and his party plan to do this anyway, whether we're good little girls or not. I have a copy of a video of Dean DelMastro's speech at a Pro-life rally on that posting as proof of Harper's intentions if we let Harper and the Conservatives loose with a majority.

Somehow I don't think shutting up is the answer. In fact, it's time to be as loud as possible. Harper is a shot away from a majority and we must not let that happen, or Canada will be taken down a long, long road I suspect would frighten even former small "c" voters if put to the test.

As for GG and Ignatieff, well, I thought he was pretty dumb at first, but given the hyperpartisan nature of the conservatives, their prorogation to stack the senate with more Conservatives, and yes, there is a rumor that Preston Manning will be appointed for GG. If he isn't partisan, I don't know is.

[Gabby in QC]

Thus far on the maternal health issue, the Liberals have misled Canadians.
1. They are urging Canada follow the US lead without acknowledging the US restricts abortion funding domestically http://www.canada.com/news/Obama+abortion+order+lures+votes+riles+Republicans/2709341/story.html
“WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama announced Sunday he will reaffirm a ban on using federal funds to pay for abortions, which convinced some holdout Democrats to support the healthcare overhaul but riled Republicans who said the decision could be easily reversed. ...“

And internationally, the US focus is NOT on abortion. This sounds very similar to the Canadian initiative http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2010/02/05/index.html
“ … Maternal and Child Health Globally: A Big Leap Forward
Efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve maternal health would gain significantly under the president’s proposal, with its new focus on maternal and newborn health. … The budget proposal notes that the maternal and child health program “will also actively invest in integrating across all health programs, particularly family planning, nutrition and infectious diseases.” ”

2. The Liberals are advocating Canada impose its abortion on demand policy abroad, despite the fact abortion is not permitted or is very restricted in many developing countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Africa

3. The Liberals are using “family planning” & “reproductive health” as synonyms for abortion, in contrast to the United Nations Population Fund http://www.unfpa.org/rh/planning.htm

“Guided by paragraph 8.25 of the Cairo Programme of Action, UNFPA **does not support or promote abortion as a method of family planning.** It accords the highest priority and support to voluntary family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies so as to eliminate recourse to abortion. UNFPA supports governments to strengthen their national health systems to deal effectively with complications of unsafe abortions, thereby saving women’s lives (every year, an estimated 74,000 women die as the result of unsafe abortions). ...”

4. The Liberals have once again used “Bush”, this time as the anti-abortion bogeyman who enacted the Mexico City Policy, aka “gag rule”, whereas that policy was introduced in 1984 by President Reagan. More about that in a separate post.

[woods]

Btw, I really don't understand your comment about "nuanced" and "helpful". Did Ruth add that she really believed women (and men and organized groups and societies) had a democratic right to speak their conscience about reproductive rights and maternal deaths and so she would use her power to defeat Harper? No?

Well, exactly what is nuanced about telling people to not say anything about all the maternal deaths or eroding reproductive rights because Ruth supports a leader who is fully capable of doing even worse things? Please explain, because the way I see it, the Liberals (and NDP and Bloc) have a responsibility to jump on Ruth's message and make it clear that they believe Canadians do have a right to speak their conscience on these matters which are so critical to women's health and well-being around the world.

[martin dufresne]

Good point all around. And what are your feelings about thr wholesale destruction of the Canadian women's movement by Harper over these last two weeks. The damage so far: Match International, Planned Parenthood, and (by Antonia Zerbisias' reckoning): Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW), CERA (Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation), Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail (around for 25 years), New Brunswick Pay Equity Coalition, Réseau des Tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec, Alberta Network of Immigrant Women, Centre de documentation sur l'éducation des adultes et la condition feminine, Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale (AFEAS) and Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses (OAITH) (a 75-member coalition primarily of first stage emergency shelters for abused women).
Is this enough to have the other parties vote him out of office or not?

[Gabby in QC]

From your story
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/803859--aid-groups-advised-to-shut-the-f-up-on-abortion
“Harper’s announced ban on abortion in foreign-aid programs is an echo of a similar ban that former president George W. Bush also enacted during his eight years in office.”
Aaarrrrgh! Could we get this straight? I realize using the dreaded Bush as the anti-abortion bogeyman is far more effective than boring people with some history, but still …
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/duff_memo.pdf
“September 10, 2001
In announcing the **restoration** of the Mexico City Policy, President Bush acknowledged that voluntary family planning services were one of the best ways to prevent abortion. The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Population, Health and Nutrition Center places high priority on preventing abortions through the use of family planning ...
… The press release accompanying President Bush's Memorandum of January 22, 2001 restoring the Mexico City Policy stated that "[t]he President's clear intention is that any restrictions do not limit organizations from treating injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, postabortion care."

That Mexico City Policy mentioned in that press release was actually initiated by President Reagan in 1984 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Policy but of course the argument would lose its punch if bogeyman Bush were removed from the picture, wouldn't it?

[MJH]

Senator Ruth apparently has always used colorful language. She was again in fine form. If she hadn't used the very common f word this wouldn't be a atory at all. The Liberals and Conservatives are spending an inordinate amount of time playing gotcha politics when they should be addressing more important issues.

The MSM just loves this petty back and forth!!

[no i won't STFU]

"Nuance" or not, why should a canadian citizen/political group be reprimanded by a harper minion for speaking out against his policies? Are you suggesting the leader of the opposition should stay silent, whether on Afghan detainees or the choice of GG, or the abortion issue? I would be seriously disappointed if ignatieff or others in opposition did NOT speak out on any of those issues; indeed, they would not be doing their job. And you can tell Harper and his cronies in ottawa, NO, women will not STFU. Nothing like pissing off half the population.

[Keith in B.C.]

Birth control in third world countries is probably the biggest, most necessary key to addressing a whole raft of other problems. But abortion??? A divisive enough issue in our modern liberal democracy, never mind trying to push it in to many very conservative cultures. Maybe the zealots need to take Ruth's blunt advise (long overdue) and put a lid on it. Take your victories in chunks and keep working.

[Observant]

At least Senator Ruth has the cajones to tell it like it is ... PM Harper is a strong and decisive leader who will drop the ax if necessary .... as opposed to flip-flopping "we Americans" Iggnatieff scumming and smearmongering. Four more years for Harper !!!!

[Ontario Voter]

"So, to recap what we learned yesterday: if you have something to say in politics, make sure you don't tick off the Prime Minister, make sure you're not talking about the governor-general and for heaven's sake, avoid nuance. In other words, it's probably best to shut the f--- up".

Only one question, Susan. How does one say what one wants to say if one has to STFU? Imagine what would have happened if the PM has a majority govt, eh? You and I might not even be allowed to write this. Lol.

[Craig]

I love how the media has addressed the whole maternal health approach as anti-abortion.

Have we heard Ms. Delacourt take on President Obama on his anti-abortion Executive Order that prevents funding for all US citizens? Of course not.

Have we heard Ms. Delacourt take on Hillary Clinton hypocritical stance in criticizing Stephen Harper all the while not saying anything against her boss/Democratic Party pal? Of course not.

Have we heard Ms. Delacourt take on the United Nations whose Population Fund very specifically does not promote nor support abortion? Are you kidding?

For once I'd like to see a degree of forthrightness in the Canadian media over this Ignatieff/Donolo invented-scandal-simply-for-the-partisan-political-gain. Will we ever see that from Ms. Delacourt? I wouldn't hold my breath.

[woods]

"they should be addressing more important issues."

What is more important than the right of citizens to speak up on matters of conscience without fear of reprisals from the government???

Whether she meant to or not, Senator Ruth has brought out an issue much more important than foreign aid and abortions. She is suggesting that in the present Canada, people should not speak their conscience if they do not want even worse things to happen. Even more frightening, is that she seems to think this is fine.

[Johnnyk]

Iggy touting another term for Ms. Jean is the nail in that coffin.
Opening his mouth has ensured that Harpoon will nominate ABJ (Anyone But Jean). Too bad, she's been a really good G-G after a series of boring hacks (Scheyer, Hnatyschyn) and my-shot-doesn't-stink entitlement queens (Sauve, Clarkson).

[Rich]

I heard that every 8 minutes a woman in the developing world dies from an unsafe abortion. We shuld be screaming that from the roof tops and not stfu about it like the Cons want. Of course medical aid should respect the laws of the nation where its being deployed but there's no denying that access to safe abortions saves many lives and where it is legal we should be funding it. I thought when Harper announced he didn't want to reopen the abortion debate that he would not make an issue of abortio nand provide it in order to save the lives of women in the developing world. But of course what he meant is that he wanted no opposition to his efforts to make safe abortions unavailable for women in developing countries so that thousands of women can continue dying just because Harper and his ilk want to feel oh so moral about knowing better than those dead women what's best for them.

[Gabby in QC]

Here’s Senator Nancy Ruth, in her own words:
http://sen.parl.gc.ca/nruth/EN/welcome.html

And here’s the Senator according to Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Ruth
"Nancy Ruth, CM (born January 6, 1942) is a Canadian Senator from Ontario. She was appointed to the Senate by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, **on the advice of Prime Minister Paul Martin,** on March 24, 2005. While initially appointed as a Progressive Conservative, on March 28, 2006 she joined the Conservative caucus. She is Canada's first openly lesbian senator. ..."

So, those of you who’re screaming The Senator's a Harper puppet, pulled by Harper strings, mouthing Harper words, I believe you have a few things wrong.

[BONNIE JOHNSON]

Senator Ruth needs to be reminded that Betty Freidan admonished the early woman's movement to SHUT UP in regard to Lesbian Rights. We did not shut up and we now have Sexual Orientation included in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not only the Tories we are trying to reach with our collective voices, but the public as well. I cannot believe that she actually want us to be quiet regarding the issue of Maternal and Child Health, or that she believes that Maternal Health is about clean water. As many of the panelists at the discussion Nancy Ruth sponsored said, look at the evidence. Progress is made when programs and projects are inclusive. All aspects of Maternal Health must be considered. It does not matter a lot if your water is clean if you are dying from the birth of your 12th child or from a septic abortion, nor is it possible to have safe childbirth in the absence of clean water.

[randy noble]

i don`t understand how saving the lives of women and children results in the murder of the child ie. abortion

[Gabby in QC]

Posted by: Rich | May 04, 2010 at 01:45 PM:
"I heard that every 8 minutes a woman in the developing world dies from an unsafe abortion."
And that is regrettable. But, according to Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow for US foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 15% of maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortions, whereas a whopping 85% of maternal deaths have nothing to do with abortion. The Government’s initiative is focusing on that much larger group. If other countries of the G8 want to, they can focus on that 15% of maternal deaths, so that all maternal health will be covered.
Here’s the link for the Isobel Coleman interview:
http://centurylink.net/video/play/341662?playlist=1&pos=1
The CBC's Carole MacNeil talks to Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow for US foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, about G8 plans to improve maternal health.
In addition to the percentages previously cited, Ms. Coleman stated that there are three pillars to promoting maternal health in developing nations:
• access to family planning [contraception]
• access to healthcare, i.e. ante-natal, delivery, and post-natal care
• safe abortions where legal, but illegal in many developing countries
G8 countries would face difficulties in trying to impose abortion on those populations.

[Moosecall]

That Sen. Ruth said what she said, well, I doubt that Stephen Harper has heard or said worse.

But she is suggesting that if you keep your mouth shut, Stephen Harper "may" just "may", change his fundamentalist ideology and "allow" (don't you just love being a woman and being TOLD that you "CAN" do this, or you "CAN" do that by Stephen Harper.), his policy towards abortion just might change.

Perhaps Sen. Ruth was hoping she was right that keeping silent would help those who want that help overseas, or perhaps she was trying to take some heat off of the PM. But Harper isn't listening to anyone but the fundamentalist base of his party. Women are from the Leave it to Beaver era.

If anyone wants a howl on what the fundamentalists believe the role of women are, just go to Wikipedia and type in "the roles of women in the 1950's". No wonder Stephen Harper wants us to stay there.

[James Hall]

Hey JohnnyK
"I heard that every 8 minutes a woman in the developing world dies from an unsafe abortion." You "heard" from who exactly - your neighbourhood garbageman? And your logic is great, that providing abortions would be saving lives... isn't abortion about terminating lives? (and I'm not pro-life, just have to point out the stupidity of your logic)
Yes, Harper said he did not want to reopen the abortion debate and he hasn't - Ignatieff has. Iggy was the one who brought this up and the MSM predictably went gaga over it. Harper has stayed away from abortion topic since he made that initial statement years ago.
I'm pro-choice and always have been, as is Senator Nancy Ruth - which of course none of the MSM have reported, but pro-choice doesn't mean I go around demanding abortions for everyone, and I don't see why my tax dollars should be going to fund abortions in Africa, or anywhere generally. I DO believe in my tax dollars being used only within Canada when the process is medically required or rape was involved.
And why are you JohnnyK, and all the other whiners who insist civilized people pay for abortions for everyone, everywhere, not calling out the great Obama as well as the UN, who both refuse to fund abortions, instead of crying about Harper who has NOT interfered with abortions & their funding within Canada?
Honestly, the hypocrisy of you liberals...

[El]

I have started a Facebook page for those who are not willing to shut the f--- up...please join here and pass the link on.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118287508193813#!/group.php?gid=118287508193813&v=info

[MyThought]

Smart move by Sen. Ruth? I think so. If she'd been gentle, etc. no one would be talking about it and it needs to come out in the open.

Gabby et al ca cut and paste all they want, it doesn't cut it.

Sen. Ruth is not the first and won't be the last to say the F-word, cause a buzz for a few days - but her message has come out loud and clear.

Comments against abortion are people of a narrow view. Life if not black white. How about those women are are beaten and raped repeatedly and maybe even have AIDS.

The lack of compassion with a narrow view is disturbing.

Besides, a woman's health issues are between her and her doctor and is no one's business. Privacy is a right when it comes to your lawyer, doctor or cleric.

[Ozy3]

As usual, the Neocons are twisting facts as quickly as their little fingers will let them. Sad, sad, sad.

1) Ruth was appointed by the Liberals. True but like all Conservative senators, she has had to swear allegiance to pass everything Harper sends to the Senate, over and above her oath to serve country and Queen. Remember the Senate stacking Harper did last year? Part of that required all Con senators to swear an oath to pass Senate reform and other Harpie Conservative bills without question. Ruth's part of that group, so get a grip and acknowledge reality. If you are allergic to telling the truth, then cite ONE Conservative senator who has spoken out or voted against Conservative bills that went to the Senate.

2) Yes, the US restricts federal funding for abortions. Um, that would be because they don't have universal health care, so the default position is that they don't fund any health procedures unless it is an exceptional circumstance. A bit disingenuous to pretend that the US and Canada have similar health care systems but that the US deliberately chooses to restricts access to procedures that would otherwise be available. Misleading argument at best; deliberately deceptive at worst.

3) Canada is not trying to force optional abortions on 3rd World Countries. That's complete bunk. The Liberals have been arguing, along with the Americans and other members of the G8, for provision of safe abortion procedures if they are required. There is no mention of cancelling or denying access to preventive procedures like contraception. Get this straight: the Liberls are asking for abortion to be included as an option where it may be required and legal - the Cons are saying abortion should NEVER be available, no matter the oonsequences. Stop ascribing Harper's extremism to other parties because only the Tories are taking a draconian stance with absolute prohibitions. Liberals are not "spreading" abortion, they are endorsing it as an option if required. Are you taking the position that the Liberals have been violating the UN's policies for the past few decades? How bizarre.

The Neocon spinning is predicated on half-truths, out of context quotations and severing of any historical patterns to help explain the circumstance. It's shameful that anything, including safety of women, can be sacrificed by Neocons to win political points or make their leader look good, even if it requires lying. If Harper's position was sane, would you need to spin everyone else's words so hard? Think about it.

Enough with the lies - throw the Mad Prophet out of Parliament!

[Gabby in QC]

Posted by: MyThought | May 05, 2010 at 07:51 AM
“Gabby et al ca cut and paste all they want, it doesn't cut it. … Comments against abortion are people of a narrow view. Life if not black white.”

Unlike you, I don’t immediately jump to conclusions about a person’s moral judgments or capacity for empathy, as you have so obviously done here.

It is precisely because “Life if [sic] not black white.” that I take the trouble to do some background research -- what you dismiss as “cut and paste” -- to illustrate my points, whereas you immediately make a moral judgment about me and my position, with nothing more than your own prejudice. But hey, let your precious “thoughts” stay in your hermetically sealed mind, MyThought.

[Gabby in QC]

Posted by: Ozy3 | May 05, 2010 at 12:11 PM:
“Yes, the US restricts federal funding for abortions. Um, that would be because they don't have universal health care … Misleading argument at best; deliberately deceptive at worst.”
The US passed its healthcare legislation, remember?
I guess you didn’t read any of the links I provided:
http://www.canada.com/news/Obama+abortion+order+lures+votes+riles+Republicans/2709341/story.html
“WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama announced Sunday **he will reaffirm a ban on using federal funds to pay for abortions,** which convinced some holdout Democrats to support the healthcare overhaul but riled Republicans who said the decision could be easily reversed. ...“
You don’t believe the canada.com/reuters report?

Here’s part of President Obama’s executive order:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/obama-abortion-statement-stupak.html
“Section 1.  Policy. 
Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism **to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services** (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. …”

And internationally?
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/home/Funding/ghcs_guidance.pdf [January 2009]
Page 60:
“Key family planning and reproductive health outcomes for FP/RH funds include, but are
not limited to: correct, voluntary use of contraceptive methods; healthy spacing of births;
reduction of unmet need and total fertility rate; increased age at sexual debut and age at
birth of first child; and prevention of abortion as a method of fertility regulation.
Page 63:
“Policy Requirements on the Use of FP/RH Funds
• Post-abortion Care: USAID FP/RH funds may be used to support post-abortion care activities, regardless of whether the abortion was legally or illegally obtained. However, no USAID funds may be used to purchase or distribute manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) kits for any purpose. Foreign NGOs may also perform and promote post-abortion care without affecting their eligibility to receive USAID assistance for family planning/reproductive health.”

So, the US does indeed place restrictions on abortion, both domestically and internationally. The opposition and opponents of PM Harper should stop misleading the public, creating the impression that countries like the US fund abortions on demand like most Western countries, which BTW are also restricted in many countries to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

[Gabby in QC]

Also posted by: Ozy3 | May 05, 2010 at 12:11 PM
“ … the Cons are saying abortion should NEVER be available, no matter the oonsequences. [sic] …”
Actually, the “Cons” have said no such thing. That is a figment of your fevered anti-Harper imagination.
What they HAVE said is that they will fund maternal and child health measures to try to “reach Millennium Development Goal 5 (MDG 5), to reduce maternal mortality by three quarters by 2015 …”
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/JUD-41183252-2NL
“Canada's Contribution
Canada has increased its funding aimed at improving sexual health, reproductive health, and maternal health from just over $37 million annually in 2000-2001 to nearly $52 million in 2007-2008.
The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) also seeks to improve maternal health by supporting:
• Access to family planning, counselling, and commodities
• Improving access to sexual and reproductive health services
• Supporting appropriate and timely antenatal, obstetric, and post-partum care for mothers and newborns
• Strengthening health systems as a whole to support the delivery of proven services at the community level
Canada has also committed $450 million over 10 years to address, through the African Health Systems Initiative, the critical shortage of human resources in the health field.”

Some reading outside the “I hate Harper” handbook might have a salutary effect.

[deborah g]

Disgusting to say the least; now they are talking about protecting us from rapists; yet fail to see that some women would choose to have an abortion if raped;

[Pamela Becking]

Ms. Delacourt: You may be willing to shut the f--- up and allow the Harper government to run roughshod over the rights of women. However, I guarantee you that there are an awful lot of us out there who are not. Harper has been eroding the rights of women since he took office. While you may be comfortable with this, the majority of women are not and if forced, will give Harper the fight of his life. He seems to forget that we are the majority in this country and that he has now pushed us too far.

I find it interesting that you alone have the right to choose which comments are published and which are not. That is hardly a way to allow dissenting opinions from appearing on your blog. Is this truly a blog or a "Harper support party?"

[Ozy3]

Gabby, you tend to ascribe intentions to Liberals but then attack people for *correctly* citing intentions of the Cons. How do you live with such blind and unconscionable inconsistency? For example, you're flagrantly stating that Liberals "are advocating Canada impose its abortion on demand policy abroad". What utter rubbish, as Canada has always offered a range of family planning measures and has never "forced" abortion on foreign countries. Yet, when I make the FACTUAL statement that Harper's Cons are removing abortion completely from family planning options, you respond by stating: "Actually, the “Cons” have said no such thing. That is a figment of your fevered anti-Harper imagination."

Inconsistent and subjective, as per the norm for Neocons who are so brave at making untrue statements.

So, CITE and QUOTE your source which says that abortion is available in Harper's foreign aid strategy for family planning and maternal health. May I remind you of MP Bev Oda's statement that “Canada has never funded a procedure that included abortion,” or MP Jim Abbott's remark that "Canada’s contribution will not include funding of abortions" or Scott Cantin, a spokesman for CIDA who stated that “the Government of Canada does not promote abortion as a means of family planning, either domestically or internationally.”

QUALITY of your citations and evidence would be appreciated over the quantity of statistics that you throw in a desperate effort to spin Harper's policies.

[Gabby in QC]

Posted by: Ozy3 | May 07, 2010 at 01:30 PM
“ … you're flagrantly stating that Liberals "are advocating Canada impose its abortion on demand policy abroad. … “
Directly from the horse’s mouth, Question Period, Tuesday, April 27, 2010
“Mr. Michael Ignatieff:
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have broken a 25-year-old Canadian consensus. They have broken the consensus with Canada's G8 partners. They are destroying Canada's credibility on maternal health.
    Why is the Prime Minister so determined to deny that **maternal health must include access to safe, legal abortions in Canada and abroad?**”
See? IN CANADA and ABROAD. The SAME here and there.

Ozy also posted this: “Canada has always offered a range of family planning measures and has never "forced" abortion on foreign countries. … “
I did NOT say Canada has “forced” abortion on other countries. What I DID say is that the Liberals want the government to export the same kind of availability of abortion that exists here in Canada to developing countries (please see Ignatieff’s question above).
Furthermore, you are using “family planning” and “abortion” interchangeably. They are not synonymous. Please refer to the United Nations Population Fund statement once again http://www.unfpa.org/rh/planning.htm
“Guided by paragraph 8.25 of the Cairo Programme of Action, UNFPA **does not support or promote abortion as a method of family planning.** It accords the highest priority and support to voluntary family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies so as to eliminate recourse to abortion. ...”
Get it? Family planning refers to contraception, i.e. prevention of pregnancy. Abortion refers to termination of a pregnancy.
And one more Ozy3 quote: ““So, CITE and QUOTE your source which says that abortion is available in Harper's foreign aid strategy for family planning and maternal health.”
Heavens, but you ARE confused!
The government has said it will NOT fund abortion (termination of pregnancy), but will fund family planning (contraception) as well as promote ante-natal (before birth/during pregnancy), partum (delivery of baby) and post-natal (after birth) care.
You either read my comments and the links I provided too quickly, or you just need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

[Ozy3]

Gabby, you are disingenuous to say the least. If your level of comprehension verges on the perverse until you deny the written words in front of your face, then you're not worth discoursing with.

Liberals have never tried to BREAK laws prohibiting abortion in other countries. Liberals AND THE UN have always pushed to offer abortion in cases where it's necessary. Where a woman is raped and does not want the child, or a woman's life is in danger due to the pregnancy and she chooses to abort it, Ignatieff is reflecting Canada's and the UN's traditional position that abortion must be available. That is not the same as "abortion on demand" which is a phrase YOU made up and ascribed to the Liberals and Ignatieff. How dare you ascribe intentions without even having the decency to verify your fallacious assumptions? If the Liberals were pushing for optional abortion only, then why the heck would they push for a range of all options, including contraception? If that were the case, then why the heck would the UN be working with us over the past few decades on this project or why would the Liberals have donated so much money if their agenda wasn't being met? Stop pretending there's not historical context around this issue and start acknowledging reality, for pete's sake!

Second, when you say that Liberals "are advocating Canada IMPOSE its abortion on demand policy abroad", how can you subsequently claim that you never said Canada "forced" abortion on foreign countries? Do you understand the meaning of "imposed"? Perhaps I should cut you some slack for lack of mental faculties or comprehension of your own words?

Finally, are you having psychological episodes by pretending that Harpo is still allowing for abortions? Whose policies do you think the quotes from Bev Oda, Jim Abbott and Scott Cantin referred to? Jesus, you're too easy. Re-read my post where I show that Harpie's CABINET MINISTERS in charge of such international aid funding are saying that Canada’s contribution never have and will not include funding of abortions. There's no qualifier to add "other than in emergency or life-threatening cases". It's an ABSOLUTE prohibition. Do you need a translator?

You're pathetic and beyond contempt. You are deliberately spreading lies and misquoting people just to mount some kind of warped defence of a person who doesn't want your spin. Harpie is proud to deny women abortions whenever he can, and you're stupidly trying to pretend he isn't. Blather on all you want - the truth is clear to all despite your despicable lies. How do you live with yourself?

[Ozy3]

Gabby wrote at 1:22 AM on May 6, 2010:

"Also posted by: Ozy3 | May 05, 2010 at 12:11 PM
“ … the Cons are saying abortion should NEVER be available, no matter the oonsequences. [sic] …”
Actually, the “Cons” have said no such thing. That is a figment of your fevered anti-Harper imagination. "

But at 2:01 AM on May 8, 2010, Gabby wrote:
"Heavens, but you ARE confused!
The government has said it will NOT fund abortion (termination of pregnancy)"

So, which is it, Gabby? Will the Harper government give funds to conduct abortions under ANY circumstances, including rape or if the mother's life is threatened? Yes of no? I'm not confused, you're dodging the question. If the Cons have said they will NEVER fund abortions under any circumstances, then what is the figment of my imagination you are referring to?
Give proof where Harpo said he would fund abortion in certain circumstances (notwithstanding Oda's, Abbott's and CIDA's claims to the contrary) or stop spreading lies. Simple as that.

[Gabby in QC]

I’ll just concentrate on a couple of points.
Ozy3 said: “Ignatieff is reflecting Canada's and the UN's traditional position that abortion must be available. That is not the same as "abortion on demand" which is a phrase YOU made up and ascribed to the Liberals and Ignatieff.”
Ozy, I’m sure you’d agree “abortions on demand” are, generally speaking, available in Canada.
From Wiki: “Abortion in Canada is not limited by the law. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.”
Now, I refer you once again to Ignatieff’s words during the April 27 QP.
“Why is the Prime Minister so determined to deny that **maternal health must include access to safe, legal abortions in Canada and abroad?**”
According to that question he asked in QP, Ignatieff wants abortions to be AS available in developing countries AS they are here in Canada, i.e. abortion on demand.
True, the Liberals sometimes add the qualifier “where legal” because they eventually realized that in some developing countries abortion is allowed under very limited circumstances, if at all.
For example, Bob Rae asked the following question [Hansard, Tuesday, April 27, 2010]:  
“… The House will know that 15 and 16-year-old women in Congo have been raped in the thousands and that rape is a tool of abuse and brutality that is a matter of fact in many parts of the world, including Africa, which this government has abandoned.
Could the minister tell us if it is the policy of the Government of Canada that those young women will not have access to abortions after they have been raped? Is that now the position of the Government of Canada?”
If one takes the trouble to check here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Africa one will see that both the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo do NOT allow abortion in the case of rape.
But with that question, Bob Rae assumes abortion in the case of rape is permitted in both Congos, and implies the government is heartlessly denying victims of rape the abortion option.
It is that kind of uninformed rhetoric that prompted me to use the word “impose” which you so strenuously objected to.
The reality is that many developing countries either restrict or do not allow abortion, so questions like Bob Rae’s are pointless IMO, since Canada cannot demand the exact same abortion services be made available in those countries as are available here.
Part 2 posted separately.

[Gabby in QC]

Part 2
Ozy3, when you stated in a previous comment “ … the Cons are saying abortion should NEVER be available, no matter the oonsequences. …” I thought your statement included Canada, i.e. that the Conservatives “are saying abortion should NEVER be available” both here in Canada and abroad. That is what some feminist groups and opposition parties have implied. They have conflated the government’s decision not to fund abortions in developing countries with the old bogeyman of a hidden agenda to restrict or ban abortions here in Canada -- the old saw about taking away “a woman’s right to choose”.
And that is why I retorted “Actually, the “Cons” have said no such thing. That is a figment of your fevered anti-Harper imagination." I was countering your statement “ … the Cons are saying abortion should NEVER be available …”

In an entirely different context, yes, I did say “The government has said it will NOT fund abortion (termination of pregnancy)". That of course refers only to developing countries, not to Canada, which is what I inferred from your statement “ … the Cons are saying abortion should NEVER be available, no matter the oonsequences. …”
Anyway, Ozy3, since today is Mother’s Day, I wonder how many pro-abortion advocates will thank their own mother for not choosing that option.
Let’s face it, you and I have very different POVs on most matters discussed here, so regardless of the number of explanations of our position you and I post, I doubt we will ever agree -- especially since my English doesn’t meet your exacting standards. :-D