Hillary Clinton advises Canada on its maternal health care initiative.

Hillary Clinton is giving us advice on our maternal health care initiative.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/139287.htm

She says "I do not think governments should be involved in making these decisions. It is perfectly legitimate for people to hold their own personal views based on conscience, religion, or any other basis. But I’ve always believed that the government should not intervene in decisions of such intimacy."

"The government should not intervene in decisions of such intimacy?" Hmm...well, the government will be using our tax dollars to pay for these abortions, so who should be involved in making "these decisions" I wonder?

Maybe Ms. Clinton would like to decide for us? Or how about those pro-choicers who think all abortions are medically necessary--even though most are not--meaning that all abortions are paid for, courtesy the Canadian taxpayer?

Oh, I almost forgot. We already decided last week--when our Members of Parliament defeated the Liberal's motion to include abortion in our maternal health initiative.

Perhaps Ms. Clinton should keep her thoughts to herself since we have already decided not to export our sad, publicly-funded, any-time, any-reason, no-reason, abortion philosophy to the poorer nations of the world.

I couldn't help but notice that yesterday's Globe had yet another editorial on Ann Coulter and her freedom of speech rights. And there were also, eight, yes count them, eight letters to the editor on the subject and a cartoon. Lots of prime real estate they're giving Coulter.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/a-university-fails-in-its-mission/article1511279/
It states:
"Universities have an obligation to protect the free exchange of ideas on campus, however offensive to someone those ideas might be. Today it is Ms. Coulter being silenced. Who will it be tomorrow? Anything that challenges people may offend someone. Therein lies the possibility of social change."

Who will be silenced tomorrow? Well, I can tell you who has been silenced for the past number of years, on numerous occasions, at a university campus near all of us: pro-life clubs.

So watch for it folks. The next time a university pro-life meeting or club is shut down or prevented from speaking by screaming objectors or university unions, keep your eyes opened to see if the Globe and Mail weighs in on the matter.

You know, in favour of freedom of speech.

The Globe and Mail is speaking out for freedom of speech in defence of Ann Coulter's right to say what she thinks at the University of Ottawa.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/would-be-prior-restraint/article1510057/

I agree wholeheartedly.

The Globe's editorial stated that "Mr. Houle's e-mail warning, in advance of her scheduled talk last night, is offensive on any number of levels, not least for the national platform it has given Ms. Coulter. Mr. Houle's outline of possible legal ramifications, the worrying implication that free speech in Canada is carefully circumscribed, in effect government-regulated, and his finger-wagging admonition to maintain 'respect and civility,' militate against the sanctity of free expression in places of higher learning and serve to embarrass his institution."

But wait a minute. I just googled to see if I could find similar Globe editorial support in defence of freedom of speech for pro-life groups on university campuses, many of whom have been shut down and/or have lost their funding or their club status as of late. I couldn't find anything.

The University of Victoria, McGill in Montreal, the University of Calgary and York University immediately come to mind.

In fact, a lot more pro-life university clubs have had their freedom of speech rights threatened, than the lone Ann Coulter.

Interesting that. Could it be that the "sanctity of free expression in places of higher learning", is only defend-able some of the time, and for some people?

I'm just saying.

Oh me oh my, everyone is going apoplectic over the defeat of the Liberals Motion on maternal health last night:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/whipped-into-a-frenzy-of-confusion.html
http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=23718080
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2010/3/24/4488610.html
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/liberal-leader-takes-blame-for-commons-confusion/article1510884/?service=mobile

Were the members whipped? Who wasn't whipped? And who will get into trouble for not whipping?

Yes, some Liberals voted against the motion and some abstained. Maybe they felt their constituents wanted them to vote that way. Maybe they were voting this way because they, um, listened to their conscience (am I allowed to say that?). Maybe they don't think Canada should be providing abortion services to third world countries because that's really not helpful to women or their unborn children.

Maybe Mr. Ignatieff will discipline them; and maybe the outcasts don't care. Who knows? But it takes guts to do what they did. To stand up and vote with your conscience. I call it a great day for democracy.

Good work MPs!

The Liberal's motion to include "reproductive health options" (code word for "abortion") in the government's maternal and child health initiative for third world countries--was defeated in the House tonight: 144 against the Motion; 138 in favour:

"That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy; that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning.

"Margaret Somerville wrote an excellent article on the topic:
http://themarknews.com/articles/1164-confusing-the-maternal-health-debate

Her last paragraph said it all:
"Finally, in arguing for funding for abortion, Mr. Ignatieff was also reported as saying, “Let’s keep the ideology [he meant the pro-life stance] out of this and move forward.” But that’s impossible, because the pro-choice stance is just as much ideologically based – that is, promotes a certain set of values and beliefs – as the pro-life one. Mr. Ignatieff was saying, therefore, that his pro-choice values should not only prevail, but not be opposed. That’s not how democracy works."

Naturally I was disappointed that my Liberal Member of Parliament, Mauril Belanger, supported the motion. I specifically asked him not to. I remember hearing somewhere that MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. Guess I'm naive.

No matter...because in the end, democracy did prevail.