MaterCare International really has a hard time of it. They've tried eleven times to get government funding for the compassionate maternal care work they do in third world countries.
MaterCare's work entails a do-no-harm brand of care.
International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) on the other hand, who does receive government funding, has a brand of "care" that consists of providing contraception to third world countries.
(See these links for the last funding IPPF received)
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/01/matercare-background-on-cida-refusing.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/01/atip-cida-and-ippf-more-to-come.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/01/atip-cida-and-ippf-part-2.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/01/atip-cida-and-ippf-part-3.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/01/atip-cida-and-ippf-part-4.html
Even though the funds IPPF received from CIDA are not supposed to be used for abortions, it does include emergency contraceptives and IUDs which many consider to be abortifacients.
And we know that IPPF includes abortion (code words "sexual and reproductive health and rights") in its "core values". IPPF believes abortion is a "human right" and are "Advocating for all governments to decriminalize abortion".
So how do we know IPPF is not using this CIDA funding to provide for, or advocate for, abortions? In fact, what mechanisms are in place on the ground in the five affected countries, to make sure this doesn't happen? Does anyone know? Because I don't.
One could make the case that IPPF's brand of "care" is more of the "we know what's good for you" variety. The kind that sticks its big nose into these very poor countries by imposing their own "values" on these exceedingly poor and underprivileged women's autonomy. Kind of like "for your own good" kind of care.
Instead of helping MaterCare and the good work they do, our tax dollars go to IPPF to "help" third world women. Makes me want to be sick.
MaterCare has set up a petition they will send to Mr. Harper to advocate for a positive kind of maternal health care that actually helps women and children. The kind of care Canadians would be proud to contribute to. The kind of care that dare I say it, saves lives.
Maybe these pathetic eleven years of refusing funding to MaterCare should come to an end. What do you think Mr. Harper, is it finally time to do something about this?
Showing posts with label MaterCare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MaterCare. Show all posts
Friday, March 8, 2013
Saturday, January 21, 2012
ATIP: CIDA and IPPF (more to come...)
There is a best way to get money from CIDA--and there is a worst way.
To deny the provision of essential obstetrics is a form of violence against women. Violence may be by commission i.e. a person is physically assaulted in some way, or by omission i.e. by culpable negligence not to have done what is necessary – in this case, providing essential care during pregnancy and childbirth.”
The best way involves telling CIDA you’ll give out lots and lots and lots of condoms to third world countries. International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) did this, along with promising all kinds of other contraception methods/abortifacients including emergency contraception and IUDs.
According to a recent Access to Information Request I did with CIDA, I learned that in IPPF’s proposal for $6 million of funding, IPPF promised to deliver :
1,229,092 Couple years of protection (CYP)
7,090,090 family planning services (FP)
3,738,052 sexual reproductive health (SRH) services (excluding family planning) and
5,738,052 SRH services provided to young people under the age of 25 (including family planning)
The worst way to get funding is to be MaterCare. Their applications for funding, have now been denied for eleven years in a row.
In their 2004 refusal from CIDA, MaterCare were told that one of the reasons their funding request was refused was because—are you ready for this? Because their project [West African regional Birth Trauma Centre in Ghana] was:
“aimed at curing the problem rather than preventing it from taking place”.
In their 2004 refusal from CIDA, MaterCare were told that one of the reasons their funding request was refused was because—are you ready for this? Because their project [West African regional Birth Trauma Centre in Ghana] was:
“aimed at curing the problem rather than preventing it from taking place”.
MaterCare was trying to cure a problem of maternal child mortality. Oh my goodness, what were they thinking?
In Matercare’s 2008 refusal, CIDA said:
“there was concern that MaterCare’s approach to the subject matter is not consistent with CIDA’s policies on maternal health.CIDA's approach to improving maternal health and reducing maternal mortality includes access to reproductive health care and family planning, themes that were not addressed in MaterCare’s proposal...”
“there was concern that MaterCare’s approach to the subject matter is not consistent with CIDA’s policies on maternal health.CIDA's approach to improving maternal health and reducing maternal mortality includes access to reproductive health care and family planning, themes that were not addressed in MaterCare’s proposal...”
Why? Because MaterCare won’t give out lots and lots and lots of condoms. Simple really.
And how does birth control save women’s lives? They don’t, not according to MaterCare:
“Abortion and birth control are irrelevant to reducing maternal mortality as most deaths occur during the last 3 months of pregnancy, during labour and delivery and one week afterwards. It is egregious to suggest to mothers that in order to save their own lives they must kill their babies, rather than to provide them with safe comprehensive maternity care. Early abortion is being promoted, by oral medication, and surgical means using manual vacuum aspirators (MVAs). The problem with these procedures is that having been given the pills or having undergone and MVA, the mother is sent home where bleeding or infection may result but she has no access to medical follow-up. Many African mothers are anemic due to malnutrition and malaria and with post abortion haemorrhage or infection death may well occur. In addition, these MVA kits are supposed to be for one time use only but as we know with injection needles and AIDS there is no assurance that they will not be used again, and as they cannot be sterilized, further use may result in spreading infection and leading to more maternal deaths.
To deny the provision of essential obstetrics is a form of violence against women. Violence may be by commission i.e. a person is physically assaulted in some way, or by omission i.e. by culpable negligence not to have done what is necessary – in this case, providing essential care during pregnancy and childbirth.”
See here for MaterCare’s full statement released in October last year on how they continue to be banned from receiving funding from CIDA.
Which brings me back to IPPF and my recent ATIP, on which I will write more later.
Friday, January 20, 2012
MaterCare - Background on CIDA refusing funding (more to come...)
(This was released by MaterCare last year)
MATERCARE INTERNATIONAL
MATERCARE INTERNATIONAL
SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTION OF
MUSKOKA FUNDING OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
FOR MATERNAL HEALTH CARE
&
- 11TH TIME MCI HAS BEEN DENIED
10 October 2011
The funding announced on September 22nd, by Prime Minister Harper, of $82 million for 28 NGO’s as part of the G8 Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Initiative went as expected to the "big" agencies for "maternal health and family planning" which included IPPF - $6 million and UNFPA - $40 million, both non Canadian organizations. As far as we can see there is little, if any, funding for essential obstetrics, which the Muskoka initiative was supposed to deliver, and only one for the drought area of east Africa e.g. Kenya. However there are 23 other agencies not listed.
In May of last year MaterCare International (MCI) was invited to the P.M’s office to meet with a senior policy advisor, about the work of MCI in west and east Africa since 1981. The meeting focused on MCI’s maternal health essential obstetrical projects, which met with the objectives of the Muskoka initiative. Also discussed were the reasons MCI’s has been denied funding for all its last applications since 2002 i.e. 11 times.
Reproductive health (abortion and birth control) has been the ideology of Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for years, which it is determined to impose throughout the developing world, especially sub-Saharan Africa, now despite the intent of the Muskoka G8 initiative. The way it is distributing these funds favours large abortion/birth control/population agencies, which have little interest in providing essential obstetrics as that is not their prime interest.
Abortion and birth control are irrelevant to reducing maternal mortality as most deaths occur during the last 3 months of pregnancy, during labour and delivery and one week afterwards. It is egregious to suggest to mothers that in order to save their own lives they must kill their babies, rather than to provide them with safe comprehensive maternity care. Early abortion is being promoted, by oral medication, and surgical means using manual vacuum aspirators (MVAs). The problem with these procedures is that having been given the pills or having undergone and MVA, the mother is sent home where bleeding or infection may result but she has no access to medical follow-up. Many African mothers are anemic due to malnutrition and malaria and with post abortion haemorrhage or infection death may well occur. In addition, these MVA kits are supposed to be for one time use only but as we know with injection needles and AIDS there is no assurance that they will not be used again, and as they cannot be sterilized, further use may result in spreading infection and leading to more maternal deaths.
To deny the provision of essential obstetrics is a form of violence against women. Violence may be by commission i.e. a person is physically assaulted in some way, or by omission i.e. by culpable negligence not to have done what is necessary – in this case, providing essential care during pregnancy and childbirth.
MCI applied to CIDA for Muskoka funding for a comprehensive rural obstetrical project for the severely affected drought district of Kenya, which has been badly neglected by government and NGOs. MCI’s proposal has been turned down twice. The first time was due to a CIDA technical issue in uploading our proposal to their site. We were told that we had not pressed a “submit” button however there was no indication that this was required especially as CIDA confirmed it had received the 29 page proposal/budget and 27 other documents. Thus as the application was complete, a project number was assigned. We challenged this reason on the grounds that process was flawed, which CIDA later agreed. If we had not done so, we would have been unfairly denied. MCI was then told that the application had been found and was being “decoded”.
This had happened to other NGOs also.
Having followed the guidelines for funding, we understood that of the total budget of $2,917,968 MCI was required to raise 25% of the total budget with CIDA providing the remaining funding up to a maximum 75%. The proposal was then turned down, for a second time on the grounds that MCI had not met the requirement that:
"The average total annual revenues of the organization over the past three years or total unencumbered financial assets under the financial control of the applicant (e.g. endowments) must be greater than the average amount requested from PWCB per year of the project)."
MCI was asked for further explanation and were told that of the $2,917,968 total MCI had to raise over the 3 years of the contract, the amount of the CIDA contribution of $2,188, 476 (75% of the total) from Canadian sources but of this MCI would have to contribute only $729,492 (25% of the total). This would, however, then leave MCI with an unused surplus of $1,458,984 which leads to the problem that as a charity MCI has to follow strict guidelines as to the use of funds received and these this funds being designated had to be used for the Kenya project purpose. This the funding process makes it impossible for smaller NGOs to obtain CIDA funding. This is the 11th time MCI has been denied project funding by CIDA since 2001. We were told in writing that as MCI did not provide “reproductive health services”, it would never receive funding and also verbally that MCI was “too Catholic” and “too close to the Pope”! Other reasons have been mostly technical/process ones but never on the substance of our proposals.
MCI has developed a model of comprehensive rural (where most of the deaths take place) obstetrics that takes into account not only the obstetrical causes of death and provides prenatal care, treatment for life threatening complications and postnatal care, but also other obstructions to survival, e.g. lack of transport, poor roads, lack of infrastructure and trained personnel. During the last three years MCI has provided $1.2 Million to build and equip a 28 bed obstetrical hospital in the town of Isiolo, Kenya capable of treating all life threatening complications; built a rural maternity clinic in Merti, district some 225kms from Isiolo; provided an emergency transport 4 X 4 ambulance for providing long distance safe transport for severely ill mothers, provided two motorbike ambulances for the villages; and trained over 100 traditional birth attendants. This area of Kenya is located in the drought region where in some areas there has been no rain for 6 years and where there has been no health care at all. The communities served are nomadic pasturalists, who have lost many of their cattle and goats due to the drought; internally displaced refugees; and those from Somalia, the border is 200 kms and Isiolo town is a transit centre. Thus the maternal mortality and morbidity is one of the highest in sub - Saharan Africa.
Our application to CIDA was for operating costs for the hospital, for refurbishing and equipping five rural maternity centres. The project would have been a unique demonstration project conceived and implemented by an experienced Canadian NGO in partnership with a Kenyan NGO and with Kenyan colleagues. The hospital and clinic are both ready to provide care. This has been achieved by generous donations from Canadians individuals, foundations and women’s groups as well by government and private donors in the UK, Italy, Australia, Poland, and the US.
The problem with CIDA is that it functions in a typical bureaucratic way from the top down and not from the bottom up, and thus fails to consider the needs of those whom it is supposed to be helping. It more concerned with its form rather than function and is CIDA is blinkered by its own ideology. It is without the health professional input it had 20 years ago and has especially an antipathy towards smaller NGOs “there are too many of them”, especially those which are faith based. NGOs such as MCI are more efficient; they are closer to the people; their expertise is invited not imposed; they listen to, live and work within the communities which they serve and are thus more acceptable.
So now there is a project which will save mother’s lives in a drought area of Kenya conceived and developed by a Canadian NGO with provides essential obstetrics in a maternity hospital with one rural clinic, all built by generous, after tax, donations from individual Canadians including many seniors, as well as Canadian foundations and the Canadian Catholic Women’s League but is denied operating funding from the Muskoka initiative, even though the P.M’s office sought advice from MCI and which congratulated it for what it had achieved. This could be a major embarrassment for the Canadian Government.
Dr R. L. Walley
Executive Director
Professor Emeritus of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Mr. Harper, tell us why you are funding Planned Parenthood
I sent a letter to Mr. Harper asking him not to fund IPPF. His office sent me a response (see below) that frankly, is insulting.
The Prime Minister's Office tells me that I "raised an issue that falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation." and so his office has "taken the liberty of forwarding [my] e-mail to Minister Oda. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration."
I really don't think any Canadian, myself included, is under any illusions about who is running the show here. Even though the PMO's office tells me my letter should rightly go to Minister Oda, we all know it is Stephen Harper who calls the shots, so who are we kidding?
The decision to fund IPPF, after Canadians were assured that abortions would not be included in the Maternal health initiative, rests with Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper needs to own up to Canadians and explain why our tax dollars are being given to an organization whose goal is to make abortion legal around the world.
--------------------
Dear Mr. Harper,
I am asking you to change your decision to fund International Planned Parenthood federation. Their mandate is to make abortion legal everywhere in the world. IPPF also lobbies to make abortion an international human right.
Instead we should fund organizations that help women and their children like Matercare, who has been refused funding 11 times. Why is that anyway? Matercare helps women and their unborn children, and IPPF destroys unborn children and greatly harms their mothers.
With your majority government you have the unique opportunity to help woman and their unborn children, here and abroad. I ask that you do that and a good first step would be to stop funding IPPF.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
-------------------
Dear Ms. Maloney,
Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister. In your e-mail, you raised an issue that falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation.
Please be assured that your comments have been carefully noted. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to Minister Oda. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration.
For more information on the Government's initiatives, you may wish to visit the Prime Minister's Web site, at www.pm.gc.ca.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
The Prime Minister's Office tells me that I "raised an issue that falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation." and so his office has "taken the liberty of forwarding [my] e-mail to Minister Oda. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration."
I really don't think any Canadian, myself included, is under any illusions about who is running the show here. Even though the PMO's office tells me my letter should rightly go to Minister Oda, we all know it is Stephen Harper who calls the shots, so who are we kidding?
The decision to fund IPPF, after Canadians were assured that abortions would not be included in the Maternal health initiative, rests with Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper needs to own up to Canadians and explain why our tax dollars are being given to an organization whose goal is to make abortion legal around the world.
--------------------
Dear Mr. Harper,
I am asking you to change your decision to fund International Planned Parenthood federation. Their mandate is to make abortion legal everywhere in the world. IPPF also lobbies to make abortion an international human right.
Instead we should fund organizations that help women and their children like Matercare, who has been refused funding 11 times. Why is that anyway? Matercare helps women and their unborn children, and IPPF destroys unborn children and greatly harms their mothers.
With your majority government you have the unique opportunity to help woman and their unborn children, here and abroad. I ask that you do that and a good first step would be to stop funding IPPF.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
-------------------
Dear Ms. Maloney,
Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister. In your e-mail, you raised an issue that falls within the portfolio of the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation.
Please be assured that your comments have been carefully noted. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to Minister Oda. I am certain that the Minister will wish to give your views every consideration.
For more information on the Government's initiatives, you may wish to visit the Prime Minister's Web site, at www.pm.gc.ca.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Mr. Harper, do not fund Planned Parenthood
The Canadian Bishops have written to Stephen Harper asking him to end funding to International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). See letter here.
Now it’s your turn to write to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda, and to your own MP.
Tell them you do not want your tax dollars to fund abortion in third world countries. Tell them you want your money to go to organizations that help women (like Matercare who have been refused funding 11 times). Tell them you do not want your tax dollars going to organizations that hurt women and their unborn children.
Remind Mr. Harper, Ms. Oda and your MP that they work for you. That they do not work for themselves and they do not work for IPPF. Remind them that they are accountable to you the taxpayer.
I’m sure you can come up with ten more good reasons why the Government of Canada--or should I say you the tax payer--should not fund IPPF.
Send your letter by email to:
Stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca
Bev.oda@parl.gc.ca
Find your own MP’s email address here:
Or send your letter by regular mail to (no postage required):
Name of Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A6
It's important that you write to them right now.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Real choice
It was disturbing to learn yesterday, that for the eleventh time, CIDA has refused funding to Matercare International because they refused to provide “reproductive health care” for the Conservatives's maternal health initiative.
We already know that CIDA is funding IPPF even though abortion is not included in the Maternal health initiative. If we choose to believe that IPPF will not advocate for their abortion ideology with this money, we are at best, blind.
IPPF’s states on their website:
“We aim to reduce the number of abortions worldwide that are unsafe. Our Member Associations are committed to identifying actions that will increase a woman’s right to access abortion-related services, including counselling and post-abortion care, as well as safe abortion services. We believe that a woman has the right to choose and access safe abortion services and we advocate for changes in legislation to support this. This is one of the priority concerns of our work.” (emphasis added).
These two funding decisions are the exact reverse of what Canada should be doing. We should fund Matercare and we should not fund IPPF.
Yesterday at Mass, the reading was Luke 11:14-26, Jesus and Beelzebub. This reading reminded me of one of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius called the Two Standards.
Some background on the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius:
St. Ignatius created these exercises to aid all persons in realizing their ultimate goal in life:
“Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.”
These exercises are done under the direction of a spiritual director, to gain a deeper understanding of our role here on Earth, and help us to eventually spend eternity with Christ the Lord.
This particular exercise helps us to imagine, to contemplate and to pray about whose authority (or standard) we would like to fall under:
Would it be Christ the Lord or would it be Lucifer?
I was going to paraphrase the Two Standards, but I think Ignatius says it pretty well himself. So I will let St. Ignatius explain this exercise for you in his own words.
TWO STANDARDS
The one of Christ, our Commander-in-chief and Lord; the other of Lucifer, mortal enemy of our human nature.
Prayer. The usual Preparatory Prayer.
First Prelude. The First Prelude is the narrative. It will be here how Christ calls and wants all under His standard; and Lucifer, on the contrary, under his.
Second Prelude. The second, a composition, seeing the place. It will be here to see a great field of all that region of Jerusalem, where the supreme Commander-in-chief of the good is Christ our Lord; another field in the region of Babylon, where the chief of the enemy is Lucifer.
Third Prelude. The third, to ask for what I want: and it will be here to ask for knowledge of the deceits of the bad chief and help to guard myself against them, and for knowledge of the true life which the supreme and true Captain shows and grace to imitate Him.
PART I THE STANDARD OF SATAN
First Point. The first Point is to imagine as if the chief of all the enemy seated himself in that great field of Babylon, as in a great chair of fire and smoke, in shape horrible and terrifying.
Second Point. The second, to consider how he issues a summons to innumerable demons and how he scatters them, some to one city and others to another, and so through all the world, not omitting any provinces, places, states, nor any persons in particular.
Third Point. The third, to consider the discourse which he makes them, and how he tells them to cast out nets and chains; that they have first to tempt with a longing for riches—as he is accustomed to do in most cases—that men may more easily come to vain honor of the world, and then to vast pride. So that the first step shall be that of riches; the second, that of honor; the third, that of pride; and from these three steps he draws on to all the other vices.
PART II THE STANDARD OF CHRIST
So, on the contrary, one has to imagine as to the supreme and true Captain, Who is Christ our Lord.
First Point. The first Point is to consider how Christ our Lord puts Himself in a great field of that region of Jerusalem, in lowly place, beautiful and attractive.
Second Point. The second, to consider how the Lord of all the world chooses so many persons—Apostles, Disciples, etc.,—and sends them through all the world spreading His sacred doctrine through all states and conditions of persons.
Third Point. The third, to consider the discourse which Christ our Lord makes to all His servants and friends whom He sends on this expedition, recommending them to want to help all, by bringing them first to the highest spiritual poverty, and—if His Divine Majesty would be served and would want to choose them—no less to actual poverty; the second is to be of reproaches and contempt; because from these two things humility follows. So that there are to be three steps; the first, poverty against riches; the second, reproaches or contempt against worldly honor; the third, humility against pride. And from these three steps let them induce to all the other virtues.
First Colloquy. One Colloquy to Our Lady, that she may get me grace from Her Son and Lord that I may be received under His standard; and first in the highest spiritual poverty, and—if His Divine Majesty would be served and would want to choose and receive me—not less in actual poverty; second, in suffering reproaches and injuries, to imitate Him more in them, if only I can suffer them without the sin of any person, or displeasure of His Divine Majesty; and with that a Hail Mary.
Second Colloquy. I will ask the same of the Son, that He may get it for me of the Father; and with that say the Soul of Christ.
Third Colloquy. I will ask the same of the Father, that He may grant it to me; and say an Our Father.
I think we need to reconsider these decisions to fund IPPF and to not fund Matercare.
We need to listen to what is written on our hearts. We need to decide whose standard we choose to follow.
We already know that CIDA is funding IPPF even though abortion is not included in the Maternal health initiative. If we choose to believe that IPPF will not advocate for their abortion ideology with this money, we are at best, blind.
IPPF’s states on their website:
“We aim to reduce the number of abortions worldwide that are unsafe. Our Member Associations are committed to identifying actions that will increase a woman’s right to access abortion-related services, including counselling and post-abortion care, as well as safe abortion services. We believe that a woman has the right to choose and access safe abortion services and we advocate for changes in legislation to support this. This is one of the priority concerns of our work.” (emphasis added).
These two funding decisions are the exact reverse of what Canada should be doing. We should fund Matercare and we should not fund IPPF.
Yesterday at Mass, the reading was Luke 11:14-26, Jesus and Beelzebub. This reading reminded me of one of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius called the Two Standards.
Some background on the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius:
St. Ignatius created these exercises to aid all persons in realizing their ultimate goal in life:
“Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.”
These exercises are done under the direction of a spiritual director, to gain a deeper understanding of our role here on Earth, and help us to eventually spend eternity with Christ the Lord.
This particular exercise helps us to imagine, to contemplate and to pray about whose authority (or standard) we would like to fall under:
Would it be Christ the Lord or would it be Lucifer?
I was going to paraphrase the Two Standards, but I think Ignatius says it pretty well himself. So I will let St. Ignatius explain this exercise for you in his own words.
TWO STANDARDS
The one of Christ, our Commander-in-chief and Lord; the other of Lucifer, mortal enemy of our human nature.
Prayer. The usual Preparatory Prayer.
First Prelude. The First Prelude is the narrative. It will be here how Christ calls and wants all under His standard; and Lucifer, on the contrary, under his.
Second Prelude. The second, a composition, seeing the place. It will be here to see a great field of all that region of Jerusalem, where the supreme Commander-in-chief of the good is Christ our Lord; another field in the region of Babylon, where the chief of the enemy is Lucifer.
Third Prelude. The third, to ask for what I want: and it will be here to ask for knowledge of the deceits of the bad chief and help to guard myself against them, and for knowledge of the true life which the supreme and true Captain shows and grace to imitate Him.
PART I THE STANDARD OF SATAN
First Point. The first Point is to imagine as if the chief of all the enemy seated himself in that great field of Babylon, as in a great chair of fire and smoke, in shape horrible and terrifying.
Second Point. The second, to consider how he issues a summons to innumerable demons and how he scatters them, some to one city and others to another, and so through all the world, not omitting any provinces, places, states, nor any persons in particular.
Third Point. The third, to consider the discourse which he makes them, and how he tells them to cast out nets and chains; that they have first to tempt with a longing for riches—as he is accustomed to do in most cases—that men may more easily come to vain honor of the world, and then to vast pride. So that the first step shall be that of riches; the second, that of honor; the third, that of pride; and from these three steps he draws on to all the other vices.
PART II THE STANDARD OF CHRIST
So, on the contrary, one has to imagine as to the supreme and true Captain, Who is Christ our Lord.
First Point. The first Point is to consider how Christ our Lord puts Himself in a great field of that region of Jerusalem, in lowly place, beautiful and attractive.
Second Point. The second, to consider how the Lord of all the world chooses so many persons—Apostles, Disciples, etc.,—and sends them through all the world spreading His sacred doctrine through all states and conditions of persons.
Third Point. The third, to consider the discourse which Christ our Lord makes to all His servants and friends whom He sends on this expedition, recommending them to want to help all, by bringing them first to the highest spiritual poverty, and—if His Divine Majesty would be served and would want to choose them—no less to actual poverty; the second is to be of reproaches and contempt; because from these two things humility follows. So that there are to be three steps; the first, poverty against riches; the second, reproaches or contempt against worldly honor; the third, humility against pride. And from these three steps let them induce to all the other virtues.
First Colloquy. One Colloquy to Our Lady, that she may get me grace from Her Son and Lord that I may be received under His standard; and first in the highest spiritual poverty, and—if His Divine Majesty would be served and would want to choose and receive me—not less in actual poverty; second, in suffering reproaches and injuries, to imitate Him more in them, if only I can suffer them without the sin of any person, or displeasure of His Divine Majesty; and with that a Hail Mary.
Second Colloquy. I will ask the same of the Son, that He may get it for me of the Father; and with that say the Soul of Christ.
Third Colloquy. I will ask the same of the Father, that He may grant it to me; and say an Our Father.
I think we need to reconsider these decisions to fund IPPF and to not fund Matercare.
We need to listen to what is written on our hearts. We need to decide whose standard we choose to follow.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Status of Women Committee hears evidence for Maternal Health Care initiative
Bias: predisposition, preconception, predilection, partiality, proclivity, bent, leaning
Recently the Status of Women Committee submitted a report of the result of four days of meetings and witness testimony at the Status of Women committee, which includes members from all parties, after maternal and child health was adopted as the priority of the G8 meeting.
There were 16 presenters. I have identified what they said on abortion and/or interesting quotes they made. It was not certain in all cases if a presenter was advocating for abortion. I have included some interesting testimony as well from Bloc MP Nicole Demers.
Noticeably absent from the hearings were MaterCare International and REAL Women of Canada. I contacted MaterCare and asked them why they were not present.
Dr Rob Walley replied: "This is the first I have heard of such hearings. MaterCare International obviously was not invited. It is just another example of what is happening in Canada. It is a joke for which the tax payer will pay to fund abortion birth control etc. Africans do not want this form of abortion Imperialism."
Dr. Walley also sent me a copy of his press release that MaterCare circulated before the G8 conference.
Ms. Diane Watts confirmed for me that REAL Women was not invited to the hearings.
May 3 presentations:
Canadian Society for International Health, Janet Hatcher Roberts, Executive Director: (Says nothing specific about abortion)
Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PMNCH), Dorothy Shaw, Canada Spokesperson ("you can save even more lives if you add in access to safe abortion")
Women Deliver, Jill Wilkinson Sheffield, President ("women need access to safe abortion services where and when legal")
May 5 presentations:
Action Canada for Population and Development, Katherine McDonald, Executive Director (strong abortion advocates)
Guttmacher Institute, Sharon Camp, President and Chief Executive Officer (supports safe abortion. "The 1993 Helms amendment, which prohibits the use of U.S. foreign aid dollars for abortion promotion or services, still stands. I would certainly like to see it overturned. I doubt that will happen in the next year or two.")
Oxfam Canada, Robert Fox, Executive Director ("A woman dies every eight minutes on this planet from an unsafe abortion. There are many women in situations of conflict who wish they had access to safe services.")
White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, Maureen McTeer, Canadian Representative ("Whenever I think that a woman dies from an abortion every eight minutes or that every minute a woman dies trying to give a birth, I tell myself that something is not working.")
May 10 presentations:
Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, Jolanta Scott-Parker, Executive Director (supports abortion)
Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances, Ainsley Jenicek, Project Manager (supports abortion, used the word "abortion" 33 times in her presentation, noteable quote: "Having sat in just a few weeks ago on a few abortions, prior to 15 weeks, in a feminist clinic in Quebec...These procedures are so fast and so cost-effective")
International Confederation of Midwives, Bridget Lynch, President ("Midwives provide family planning, and in some countries are attending at first trimester abortions...Women will die, and women will die if there aren't functioning health care systems. Ultimately, this is not our decision about who receives and who does not receive an abortion. We should not be involved in this discussion as a nation. That is up to the individual woman and her health care providers. I don't even want to say that it's up to the law in the country, because it is not. We all, as women and as people, have to get past this. It's ridiculous. I'm seeing what is going on with the politicization of this committee. We're wasting this opportunity to support Canada taking a leadership role, including the provision of.... I've been sitting here for an hour and a half now, somewhat aghast, as I realize the division within this committee. What is going on here? Being so absolutely, humanly... I'm asking the question. What is happening here politically? Are you really saying that in 2010 a woman should die because Canada said, based on politics, that we wouldn't be providing funding")
International Planned Parenthood Federation, Pierre La Ramée, Director, Development and Public Affairs, Western Hemisphere Region (strong abortion supporter, "I'd like to say a little bit about abortion in Africa and Latin America. It would be a misrepresentation to say that abortion is illegal in Africa and Latin America. The fact is that in the majority of countries in Africa and Latin America it's legal under some circumstances. In countries where it is not legal, the Democratic Republic of the Congo being a case in point, Canada's concern shouldn't be to try to impose its laws or its values on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Rather, I would hope that Canada would be concerned with rape as a weapon of war and the large number of women who die from unsafe abortion, because in a circumstance where abortion is not legal, this becomes a major contributor to maternal mortality".)
Regroupement Naissance-Renaissance, Lorraine Fontaine, Coordinator, Political Issues (doesn't mention abortion)
(an interesting exchange):
Mrs. Michelle Simson (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.):
We've heard testimony from witnesses during the course of this study that access to full reproductive and sexual health care is not just a health issue, but it's a basic human right. Would you agree with this view or not?
Mr. Pierre La Ramée: Yes.
Ms. Jolanta Scott-Parker: Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Ainsley Jenicek: Yes.
Ms. Bridget Lynch: Yes.
Ms. Lorraine Fontaine: Yes.
Mrs. Michelle Simson: Thank you.
May 12, 2010:
AUTO21, Anne Snowdon, Researcher
Results Canada, Christina Dendys, Executive Director
Safe Kids Canada, Pamela Fuselli, Executive Director
Save the Children Canada, Cicely McWilliam, Coordinator, EVERY ONE Campaign
(None of these four women mentioned abortion in their presentations.)
Mrs. Michelle Simson (Lib)
"So my question is this. Given that you all mentioned that you support a comprehensive approach, wouldn't you agree that this is now maybe becoming a menu-like approach, based on what our government would like to do, and would contradict this consensus on a comprehensive approach, and in doing so would drastically reduce its effectiveness?"
The Chair: We'll begin with Ms. McWilliam.
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: To be honest, I actually will choose to stay silent on that, in large part because there is a reason why we as a group, and Save the Children in particular, in our brief focused on community health workers. It's that we really felt that this was where the need is. It's not that we don't support the notion of a comprehensive approach. We're a member of the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, and as a member we have certainly endorsed their overall mission statement.
But from the point of view of the work that we do, what we see —
Mrs. Michelle Simson: Yes, you did testify that your organization doesn't offer any abortion services.
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: Right, but beyond just the services we provide, I'm talking about what we see on the ground and the fact that roughly 85% of the women who are dying are dying not because of or related to abortion. Those are all reasons why we felt it was important to focus on providing skilled attendants —
Mrs. Michelle Simson: You mean they're not dying as a result of a lack of access to abortion?
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: No, no, 85% are dying through lack of access to skilled birth attendants and because of sepsis, etc.
Mrs. Michelle Simson: I don't mean to cut you off, but this is a five-minute round, so I want to give the other witnesses an opportunity.
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: Fair enough. But that's why I sort of stayed silent, on balance.
The Chair: Ms. Dendys.
Ms. Christina Dendys: I actually didn't think you stayed silent. I thought it was a good answer. We focused on Canada's value-add being front line workers because we thought that's where we could have tremendous impact for the very poorest people where they live. But in terms of a comprehensive approach, what I heard coming out of the development ministers meeting was that under the G8 initiative as a whole, countries will have an opportunity to invest where they feel they can have the most impact, based on their skills and their capacity, and that Canada's approach would be focused on contraception and other ranges of opportunities, but not necessarily abortion.
Dr. Anne Snowdon: I have nothing further to add.
The Chair: Ms. Fuselli.
Ms. Pamela Fuselli: No, this is outside of my scope of expertise,for sure. Certainly we focus on the child side.
The Chair: Thank you. You have one and a half minutes.
Mrs. Michelle Simson: If you focus on the child side, would you reject evidence that access to safe abortions and contraception could prevent up to 40% of maternal deaths, which has a direct impact on a child, who can die as a result of their mother having died?
Ms. Pamela Fuselli: The topic is completely outside of my scope of expertise.
The Chair: Ms. Dendys, did you want to answer that? You seemed to be
Ms. Christina Dendys: I'm sorry, I was confused about who it was directed to. You said that a large proportion of women die because of lack of access to contraceptive care. What we're advocating concerning these front line health workers is certainly the capacity to deliver a full range of supports in terms of contraception and family planning and birth spacing.
The Chair: You have 30 seconds.
Mrs. Michelle Simson: The other part of the question was this. If mothers are dying, if 40% of maternal deaths are lack of access to safe abortions, because they're jumping off roofs, would you not agree that it has a direct impact on the lives of children?
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: I'm sorry, I've not heard that statistic, so I can't speak to it. The statistic that I've seen repeatedly is that it's roughly 15% of women. That's not something to sneeze at, not by any stretch of the imagination. I don't want to leave the impression that I think that's an acceptable number. But as I said, because the majority of the women, according to the statistics, whom we've seen and worked with as organizations are dying because of problems related to the carrying of a child to term and the problems during delivery and after delivery, that is where we felt the focus should be.
The Chair: Thank you.
(later evidence follows...notice how Ms. Demers' tone changes as she asks her questions and note her very last comment)
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wong.
Now we go to Madame Demers for the Bloc.
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ladies, thank you for being here. The World Health Organization says that for the fifth millennium development goal to be achieved, maternal mortality rates will have to decrease much faster that they did between 1990 and 2005, which means that there must be greater focus on women's health care and prevention of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions, and women must be able to receive quality obstetrical care during pregnancy and childbirth.
Today, one seventh of the women in Africa die from failed or unsafe abortions or in childbirth. Nearly 1.7 million women a year have abortions that leave them injured, mutilated, unable to have children after or dead because they had children after. A total of 45,000 women die every year.
You said that was nothing to sneeze at. Don't all these women have the right to stay alive, like any woman who wants to have children, and look forward to having a child one day when they are ready to have one?
Don't you think that our goal as a country should also include ensuring that all women can live and survive pregnancy and childbirth or an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy?
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: First of all, as I said before, Save the Children is a member of the partnership, and we support the notion of an entire support of reproductive care, or health care in totality. What I was saying in relation to the focus of this brief is, again, where the consensus of the organizations who drafted it felt that the value-add for Canada was. Again, the G8 as a whole will take reproductive care up —
Ms. Nicole Demers: I am sorry, but I did not read your brief. I did not have time to read it because we just received it. I am asking you a very simple question. You said you agreed that the full range of care should be provided. I do not agree that women in other countries should receive less care than women here. I am sorry. Ms. Dendys, I would like your opinion on this.
Ms. Christina Dendys: I don't disagree with you, in the sense that all women should have access to health. What we were asked to present on was where we thought the value-added was and where we thought we could have tremendous impact in terms of the vast majority of women and children who are dying. We collectively have determined, based on my colleagues' expertise or the groups' expertise, that community care and front line health workers can have a tremendous impact and give tremendous value-added to the continuum of care.
A bigger issue related to what you are talking about in terms of the full range of reproductive choice is that one of the challenges in 90% of African countries is that there is no access to abortion. It's illegal.
Ms. Nicole Demers: Madame Dendys, je comprends —
Ms. Christina Dendys: I mean, there are ways to address that through the UN, and other ways as well, but I am just saying that we were asked to present here on what we thought our value-add was for Canada. So that's what we're presenting on.
Ms. Nicole Demers: I understand that you likely receive funding and cannot speak. That is clear.
The Chair: You have one more minute.
Ms. Nicole Demers: No, thank you, Madam Chair. It is pointless for me to be here today after what I have heard.
The Chair: Thank you, Madame Demers.
Ms. Mathyssen for the NDP.
Ms. Irene Mathyssen: Thank you, Madam Chair.
----------------------------------------------------
All testimony is found here
Monday, May June 7, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Wednesday May 5, 2010
Monday May 3, 2010
Recently the Status of Women Committee submitted a report of the result of four days of meetings and witness testimony at the Status of Women committee, which includes members from all parties, after maternal and child health was adopted as the priority of the G8 meeting.
There were 16 presenters. I have identified what they said on abortion and/or interesting quotes they made. It was not certain in all cases if a presenter was advocating for abortion. I have included some interesting testimony as well from Bloc MP Nicole Demers.
Noticeably absent from the hearings were MaterCare International and REAL Women of Canada. I contacted MaterCare and asked them why they were not present.
Dr Rob Walley replied: "This is the first I have heard of such hearings. MaterCare International obviously was not invited. It is just another example of what is happening in Canada. It is a joke for which the tax payer will pay to fund abortion birth control etc. Africans do not want this form of abortion Imperialism."
Dr. Walley also sent me a copy of his press release that MaterCare circulated before the G8 conference.
Ms. Diane Watts confirmed for me that REAL Women was not invited to the hearings.
May 3 presentations:
Canadian Society for International Health, Janet Hatcher Roberts, Executive Director: (Says nothing specific about abortion)
Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (PMNCH), Dorothy Shaw, Canada Spokesperson ("you can save even more lives if you add in access to safe abortion")
Women Deliver, Jill Wilkinson Sheffield, President ("women need access to safe abortion services where and when legal")
May 5 presentations:
Action Canada for Population and Development, Katherine McDonald, Executive Director (strong abortion advocates)
Guttmacher Institute, Sharon Camp, President and Chief Executive Officer (supports safe abortion. "The 1993 Helms amendment, which prohibits the use of U.S. foreign aid dollars for abortion promotion or services, still stands. I would certainly like to see it overturned. I doubt that will happen in the next year or two.")
Oxfam Canada, Robert Fox, Executive Director ("A woman dies every eight minutes on this planet from an unsafe abortion. There are many women in situations of conflict who wish they had access to safe services.")
White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, Maureen McTeer, Canadian Representative ("Whenever I think that a woman dies from an abortion every eight minutes or that every minute a woman dies trying to give a birth, I tell myself that something is not working.")
May 10 presentations:
Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, Jolanta Scott-Parker, Executive Director (supports abortion)
Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances, Ainsley Jenicek, Project Manager (supports abortion, used the word "abortion" 33 times in her presentation, noteable quote: "Having sat in just a few weeks ago on a few abortions, prior to 15 weeks, in a feminist clinic in Quebec...These procedures are so fast and so cost-effective")
International Confederation of Midwives, Bridget Lynch, President ("Midwives provide family planning, and in some countries are attending at first trimester abortions...Women will die, and women will die if there aren't functioning health care systems. Ultimately, this is not our decision about who receives and who does not receive an abortion. We should not be involved in this discussion as a nation. That is up to the individual woman and her health care providers. I don't even want to say that it's up to the law in the country, because it is not. We all, as women and as people, have to get past this. It's ridiculous. I'm seeing what is going on with the politicization of this committee. We're wasting this opportunity to support Canada taking a leadership role, including the provision of.... I've been sitting here for an hour and a half now, somewhat aghast, as I realize the division within this committee. What is going on here? Being so absolutely, humanly... I'm asking the question. What is happening here politically? Are you really saying that in 2010 a woman should die because Canada said, based on politics, that we wouldn't be providing funding")
International Planned Parenthood Federation, Pierre La Ramée, Director, Development and Public Affairs, Western Hemisphere Region (strong abortion supporter, "I'd like to say a little bit about abortion in Africa and Latin America. It would be a misrepresentation to say that abortion is illegal in Africa and Latin America. The fact is that in the majority of countries in Africa and Latin America it's legal under some circumstances. In countries where it is not legal, the Democratic Republic of the Congo being a case in point, Canada's concern shouldn't be to try to impose its laws or its values on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Rather, I would hope that Canada would be concerned with rape as a weapon of war and the large number of women who die from unsafe abortion, because in a circumstance where abortion is not legal, this becomes a major contributor to maternal mortality".)
Regroupement Naissance-Renaissance, Lorraine Fontaine, Coordinator, Political Issues (doesn't mention abortion)
(an interesting exchange):
Mrs. Michelle Simson (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.):
We've heard testimony from witnesses during the course of this study that access to full reproductive and sexual health care is not just a health issue, but it's a basic human right. Would you agree with this view or not?
Mr. Pierre La Ramée: Yes.
Ms. Jolanta Scott-Parker: Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Ainsley Jenicek: Yes.
Ms. Bridget Lynch: Yes.
Ms. Lorraine Fontaine: Yes.
Mrs. Michelle Simson: Thank you.
May 12, 2010:
AUTO21, Anne Snowdon, Researcher
Results Canada, Christina Dendys, Executive Director
Safe Kids Canada, Pamela Fuselli, Executive Director
Save the Children Canada, Cicely McWilliam, Coordinator, EVERY ONE Campaign
(None of these four women mentioned abortion in their presentations.)
Mrs. Michelle Simson (Lib)
"So my question is this. Given that you all mentioned that you support a comprehensive approach, wouldn't you agree that this is now maybe becoming a menu-like approach, based on what our government would like to do, and would contradict this consensus on a comprehensive approach, and in doing so would drastically reduce its effectiveness?"
The Chair: We'll begin with Ms. McWilliam.
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: To be honest, I actually will choose to stay silent on that, in large part because there is a reason why we as a group, and Save the Children in particular, in our brief focused on community health workers. It's that we really felt that this was where the need is. It's not that we don't support the notion of a comprehensive approach. We're a member of the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, and as a member we have certainly endorsed their overall mission statement.
But from the point of view of the work that we do, what we see —
Mrs. Michelle Simson: Yes, you did testify that your organization doesn't offer any abortion services.
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: Right, but beyond just the services we provide, I'm talking about what we see on the ground and the fact that roughly 85% of the women who are dying are dying not because of or related to abortion. Those are all reasons why we felt it was important to focus on providing skilled attendants —
Mrs. Michelle Simson: You mean they're not dying as a result of a lack of access to abortion?
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: No, no, 85% are dying through lack of access to skilled birth attendants and because of sepsis, etc.
Mrs. Michelle Simson: I don't mean to cut you off, but this is a five-minute round, so I want to give the other witnesses an opportunity.
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: Fair enough. But that's why I sort of stayed silent, on balance.
The Chair: Ms. Dendys.
Ms. Christina Dendys: I actually didn't think you stayed silent. I thought it was a good answer. We focused on Canada's value-add being front line workers because we thought that's where we could have tremendous impact for the very poorest people where they live. But in terms of a comprehensive approach, what I heard coming out of the development ministers meeting was that under the G8 initiative as a whole, countries will have an opportunity to invest where they feel they can have the most impact, based on their skills and their capacity, and that Canada's approach would be focused on contraception and other ranges of opportunities, but not necessarily abortion.
Dr. Anne Snowdon: I have nothing further to add.
The Chair: Ms. Fuselli.
Ms. Pamela Fuselli: No, this is outside of my scope of expertise,for sure. Certainly we focus on the child side.
The Chair: Thank you. You have one and a half minutes.
Mrs. Michelle Simson: If you focus on the child side, would you reject evidence that access to safe abortions and contraception could prevent up to 40% of maternal deaths, which has a direct impact on a child, who can die as a result of their mother having died?
Ms. Pamela Fuselli: The topic is completely outside of my scope of expertise.
The Chair: Ms. Dendys, did you want to answer that? You seemed to be
Ms. Christina Dendys: I'm sorry, I was confused about who it was directed to. You said that a large proportion of women die because of lack of access to contraceptive care. What we're advocating concerning these front line health workers is certainly the capacity to deliver a full range of supports in terms of contraception and family planning and birth spacing.
The Chair: You have 30 seconds.
Mrs. Michelle Simson: The other part of the question was this. If mothers are dying, if 40% of maternal deaths are lack of access to safe abortions, because they're jumping off roofs, would you not agree that it has a direct impact on the lives of children?
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: I'm sorry, I've not heard that statistic, so I can't speak to it. The statistic that I've seen repeatedly is that it's roughly 15% of women. That's not something to sneeze at, not by any stretch of the imagination. I don't want to leave the impression that I think that's an acceptable number. But as I said, because the majority of the women, according to the statistics, whom we've seen and worked with as organizations are dying because of problems related to the carrying of a child to term and the problems during delivery and after delivery, that is where we felt the focus should be.
The Chair: Thank you.
(later evidence follows...notice how Ms. Demers' tone changes as she asks her questions and note her very last comment)
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Wong.
Now we go to Madame Demers for the Bloc.
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ladies, thank you for being here. The World Health Organization says that for the fifth millennium development goal to be achieved, maternal mortality rates will have to decrease much faster that they did between 1990 and 2005, which means that there must be greater focus on women's health care and prevention of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions, and women must be able to receive quality obstetrical care during pregnancy and childbirth.
Today, one seventh of the women in Africa die from failed or unsafe abortions or in childbirth. Nearly 1.7 million women a year have abortions that leave them injured, mutilated, unable to have children after or dead because they had children after. A total of 45,000 women die every year.
You said that was nothing to sneeze at. Don't all these women have the right to stay alive, like any woman who wants to have children, and look forward to having a child one day when they are ready to have one?
Don't you think that our goal as a country should also include ensuring that all women can live and survive pregnancy and childbirth or an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy?
Ms. Cicely McWilliam: First of all, as I said before, Save the Children is a member of the partnership, and we support the notion of an entire support of reproductive care, or health care in totality. What I was saying in relation to the focus of this brief is, again, where the consensus of the organizations who drafted it felt that the value-add for Canada was. Again, the G8 as a whole will take reproductive care up —
Ms. Nicole Demers: I am sorry, but I did not read your brief. I did not have time to read it because we just received it. I am asking you a very simple question. You said you agreed that the full range of care should be provided. I do not agree that women in other countries should receive less care than women here. I am sorry. Ms. Dendys, I would like your opinion on this.
Ms. Christina Dendys: I don't disagree with you, in the sense that all women should have access to health. What we were asked to present on was where we thought the value-added was and where we thought we could have tremendous impact in terms of the vast majority of women and children who are dying. We collectively have determined, based on my colleagues' expertise or the groups' expertise, that community care and front line health workers can have a tremendous impact and give tremendous value-added to the continuum of care.
A bigger issue related to what you are talking about in terms of the full range of reproductive choice is that one of the challenges in 90% of African countries is that there is no access to abortion. It's illegal.
Ms. Nicole Demers: Madame Dendys, je comprends —
Ms. Christina Dendys: I mean, there are ways to address that through the UN, and other ways as well, but I am just saying that we were asked to present here on what we thought our value-add was for Canada. So that's what we're presenting on.
Ms. Nicole Demers: I understand that you likely receive funding and cannot speak. That is clear.
The Chair: You have one more minute.
Ms. Nicole Demers: No, thank you, Madam Chair. It is pointless for me to be here today after what I have heard.
The Chair: Thank you, Madame Demers.
Ms. Mathyssen for the NDP.
Ms. Irene Mathyssen: Thank you, Madam Chair.
----------------------------------------------------
All testimony is found here
Monday, May June 7, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Wednesday May 5, 2010
Monday May 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)