|
|
|
|
Canadian Prime Minister Refuses
to Buckle Under to Secretary of
State Clinton's Pro-Abortion
Warning Part Two of Three By Dave Andrusko Sometimes a single sentence can crystallize a sentiment better than a book-length explanation. Consider these remarkably revealing opening words from a story headlined, "Canada defends decision not to fund abortions," written by the Associated Press's Rob Gillies. "HALIFAX, Nova Scotia -- Canada's Conservative prime minister on Tuesday defended his government's decision not to fund abortions abroad despite putting forward maternal and children's health care as the top foreign-aid initiative at this year's G-8 summit." Do you get it?
To Gillies it is either the height of hypocrisy or the depth of ignorance for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to make the health of women and their children a "top foreign-aid initiative" and yet not funnel money into abortion. Where as once upon time love and marriage went together like a horse and carriage, to today's abortion militant killing babies and improving maternal health go together like stirrups and a curette. Gillies bought hook, line, and sinker the line propagated by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who boxed Harper's ears in March. Gillies correctly described Clinton as being "adamant at a G-8 meeting in Canada last month that any international effort to boost maternal health must include family planning, including access to safe abortions." Dubbed "Hurricane Hillary" by an admiring Canadian columnists, Clinton said at a news conference in Quebec, "You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions." She added, although she not did have to, "This is an issue of great concern to me and my government." (The Toronto Star dubbed this as a "grenade in the lap of her shell-shocked Canadian hosts.") For his part Harper, graciously responded in a speech in Parliament. "We understand that other governments, that other taxpayers may do something different, he said, adding "We want to make sure that our funds are used to save the lives of women and children, and are used on the many, many things that are available to us that frankly do not divide the Canadian population." My pro-life Canadian friends lament that abortion is seen as the third rail of Canadian politics to many rubbery-kneed politicians. And Harper, for all his determination over the years to avoid the abortion issue, did take the step knowing that he would be skewered by a Canadian press that is overwhelmingly pro-abortion. So, instead of abortion, what does Harper have in mind? According to an article in The Canadian Press, "Canada hosts the G8 summit this summer in Huntsville, Ontario, and has championed the plan to bring basic health services to the poorest of pregnant women and children, mostly in Africa." Mike Blanchfield writes, "Conservative MP Jim Abbott, parliamentary secretary for International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda, said Canada would spend money in other areas such as training frontline health workers, nutrition, treatment and prevention of diseases such as pneumonia, malaria and AIDS, as well as clean water and sanitation." But to pro-abortionists, like Clinton, it is literally impossible to separate abortion from "family planning." And they will fight like the devil to make sure every nation underwrites the slaughter of the unborn abroad. The irony is, of course, is that a recent report in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet contained the encouraging news that deaths of women during childbirth dropped by a startling 35% from 1980 to 2008, from more than half a million yearly to 343,000. We have been told for decades that it is the absence of the "right" to abortion that drives maternal mortality, so obviously a decrease must be because there were more abortions, right? Wrong! The word "abortion" does not appear even once. According to Denise Grady of the New York Times, "The study cited a number of reasons for the improvement: lower pregnancy rates in some countries; higher income, which improves nutrition and access to health care; more education for women; and the increasing availability of 'skilled attendants' -- people with some medical training -- to help women give birth. Improvements in large countries like India and China helped to drive down the overall death rates." Hats off to Prime Minister Harper. For the sake of women and their unborn children, we can only hope he sticks to his guns. |
