Showing posts with label Muskoka Initiative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muskoka Initiative. Show all posts

Friday, December 12, 2014

IPPF: 45 million services, but no abortion?

You may recall that the $6 million funding Canada gave to IPPF through DFATD for Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania, was not to go for abortion services.

In fact, in the ATIP document I received from DFATD, there are multiple assurances from IPPF that the money is not being used for abortion services.Yet all we really have is IPPF's word for it.

Below I have summarized all the services provided by IPPF in fiscal year 2013/2014.

As you can see, that's a lot of services, yet many are not at all well defined.

So I asked for some clarifications on some of these services.

For item 1128 (Provide other SRH medical services) which had 1,798,317 services, I asked for a further breakdown of what these services were.

DFATD response:
"Consultation - Bangladesh, Mali
Diagnostic tests - Bangladesh, Mali,Tanzania
Therapy/treatment - Bangladesh, Afghanistan
Surgery - Bangladesh, Tanzania
Other - Bangladesh, Tanzania, Sudan"
As you can see these breakdowns still don't tell us what kinds of services IPPF is providing. So I asked for an additional clarification.

DFATD response:
"IPPF does not have additional description for these services, but it should be noted that these services do not relate to HIV, STI, abortion, gynaecology, obstetrics, etc."
So IPPF has no idea what exactly, these almost 2 million services include--yet we are simply expected to take IPPF's word for it that they don't include abortion?

Then for item 1211 (Other family planning services for young people), of which there were 4,860,975 services, I asked for a description of each of these "family planning services" and their breakdown by numbers, for each different category of service.

DFATD response:
"All family planning services are provided to young people. Essentially the same methods as the other FP indicators, for clients under 25. No information about how DFATD funding relates to this."
I then asked DFATD, if IPPF is saying that they do not know how much DFATD money goes to giving FP services to young people?

DFATD's response:
"IPPF does not price consultations or staff member’s time - by either age group or service category, therefore they cannot earmark a specific amount for what was spent on youth family planning services. IPPF estimates the cash value based on salaries and clinic space as they are the two key drivers of price."
So IPPF provided almost 5 million services to young people, with no further breakdown. Again we just have to take IPPF's word for it. And what is the ages of these young people?

DFATD's response:
"Member Associations (IPPF's local partners) abide by the legal limits in the country it operates."
And what are the legal age limits in these countries? I'm waiting for an answer to that.

But there in a nutshell, is the real problem with all this. The Canadian people give their tax dollars to DFATD. DFATD then gives that money to IPPF. IPPF then gives that money to its "member associations" to provide in most cases--undefined services.

If IPPF can't break down these services any further (and they can't), then how do they know the member associations are not using the money for abortion? Do we just have to take their word for it? Apparently.


Sunday, May 4, 2014

MP questions CIDA due diligence insuring IPPF isn't funding abortions

We now have more cause for concern regarding CIDA/DFATD's $6 million funding of IPPF.

In an ATIP to DFATD I asked for correspondence regarding the Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health.to the PMO and CIDA.

This yielded a few letters, but one in particular was noteworthy.

On October 27, 2011, in a very detailed letter from MP Maurice Vellacott to Stephen Harper, Mr. Vellacott voices his concerns to the Prime Minister by asking seven questions about the $6 million funding IPPF received as part of the Muskoka initiative. (see below for Mr. Vellacott's letter and the responses from Mr. Harper and Ms. Oda).

In a nutshell, Mr. Vellacott's questions what due diligence is in place to ensure the funding would not go to pay for any abortion services, as was stipulated by the contribution agreement between CIDA and IPPF. All pertinent questions I thought, some of which I've also asked myself to CIDA/DFATD. (For all my links to the CIDA/IPPF funding see this page.)

The Prime Minister doesn't answer any of Mr. Vellacott's questions. Not one. And then the PM simply forwards Mr. Vellacott's letter on, to then Minister Bev Oda, who also doesn't answer any of his questions. Not one. In fact Ms. Oda's reply is obviously a form letter, since it is exactly the same as all of her responses to the other letters in the package.

So why were Mr. Vellacott's questions never answered?







Sunday, March 16, 2014

CIDA funding to IPPF - the series

Here are all my writings on the funding CIDA (now called DFATD or Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada) has given to IPPF (International Planned Parenthood).

Monday, July 20, 2015
IPPF - Menstrual Regulation or Erratic Regulation?

Monday, February 16, 2015
IPPF and Depo-Provera: what about informed consent?

IPPF: 45 million services, but no abortion?
Friday, December 12, 2014

Government of Bangladesh dismisses board of FPAB
Tuesday, October 7, 2014

DFATD and IPPF - the numbers don't add up
September 23, 2014

DFATD and IPPF - check your numbers
September 22, 2014

DFATD and IPPF - 45,118 people not sterilized in Tanzania
September 22, 2014

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP questions CIDA due diligence insuring IPPF isn't funding abortions
May 4, 2014

Canadian money to IPPF for funding "safe abortion care" and "emergency contraception" in Afghanistan
May 2, 2014

Dec 10, 2013, 2013 

Oct 15, 2013 

Oct 04, 2013 

Sep 28, 2013

Sep 14, 2013

Jan 23, 2012

Jan 23, 2012 

Jan 23, 2012 

Jan 21, 2012

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

CIDA does IPPF site visits in only two of five countries

It seems DFAIT's (formerly CIDA) due diligence criteria of making field visits to ensure that the $6 million funding to IPPF does not include abortion services, didn't happen in three of the five countries involved.

This latest ATIP request to DFAIT was based on an email I had received previously from a CIDA media person that stated:

"Field visits to projects and regular monitoring by CIDA field representatives also provide key information that permits CIDA to determine and assess whether the implementing organization is performing or delivering services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement."

So I asked for:

"all information regarding these field visits to the five countries benefiting from the $6 million funding to IPPF."

This is what I received.

There were site visits to Bangladesh between February 12, 2012 and Feb 23, 2012.

And this note:

"All partners were very pleased to have a CIDA officer visit. Some have been receiving funding for several years but have never had the opportunity to welcome a CIDA officer."

Sounds like this is the first time CIDA had done any checking as to how our funds are being used in Bangladesh in several years.

We know that FPAB [IPPF's member association in Bangladesh] does menstrual regulation in Bangladesh, but supposedly no Canadian funds are being used for this. But then we read this comment in the report under their "advocacy program":

"...the management team indicated that FPAB does a lot of advocacy work. Advocacy is part of everything they do, either at the policy making level through activities targeting the MoHFW (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) or at the district and grassroots levels, whenever there is an opportunity during formal meetings with local authorities and religious leaders at training sessions etc. They envision this staying the same over the next few years."

Would that mean then, advocacy for menstrual regulation and abortions? One would assume so, since it is a well known fact that IPPF wants to make abortion legal everywhere and never shies away from telling us so.

The "background" portion of the information does make one reference that abortion services will not be funded under the initiative.

Pages 76 and 77 identify a site visit to Tanzania, but it says virtually nothing about how the funds are used here. It does say that:

"IPPFAR [IPPF Africa Regional Office] also mobilizes resources for its MAs ([member Associations], and advocates for sexual and reproductive rights at the county, regional and international level."

There's that "advocacy" word again.

And you may be asking, what about the due diligence that our money is not being used for abortion services is Afghanistan, Mali and the Sudan? Good question. My ATIP revealed this:

"Please note, no records were found for Afghanistan, Mail or Sudan."

Apparently those field visits and regular monitoring to three of the five countries to "determine and assess whether the implementing organization is performing or delivering services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement." never even happened.

(Note: this ATIP was for the first Annual Progress Report for the project: 27 January - 31 March 2012, and for the Mid-year Report: 1 April - 30 September 2012. There will be additional reports for each year of the funding.)

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

What's going on in Bangladesh?

Detective: Mr. Smith, did you murder your wife?
Mr. Smith: No detective, I did not.
Detective: Can I have that in writing please?
Mr. Smith: I, John Smith, did not murder my wife. Signed John Smith.
Detective: Okay Mr. Smith, you're free to go. Have a nice weekend!


This is similar to how it appears CIDA satisfies its due diligence responsibility, regarding our $6 million funding to IPPF, as it relates to Menstrual Regulation (MR) services in Bangladesh.

(MR is an abortion only if the woman is pregnant; so not all MR's amount to abortions. Because they don't check whether the woman is pregnant first, laws that ban abortions can be circumvented, since they don't actually know that she is pregnant. But if she is pregnant, then MS is an abortion.)

Here is correspondence between CIDA and IPPF on this subject. I received the information through an Access to Information request. There are two separate instances of such correspondence.

The first exchange occurred on October 3, 2011.

(Note: I use the word "IPPF" to identify the IPPF employee in the email exchange. "CIDA" is used to identify the CIDA employee.)
............
Dear IPPF,
Just as ___  predicted on Friday, CIDA is now being called on to discuss IPPF's activities in Bangladesh, specifically with regard to "menstrual extraction" or "menstrual regulation". Can you please provide information on whether or not IPPF supports this practice/offers this service in Bangladesh, and if you do, how? How can concerned donors be assured that funding to Bangladesh will not support this practice if it can in fact be called abortion or "an abortion-related-service"? What is IPPF's position? (If possible, can you also provide the text of the response you issued to the media in response to the same inquiry?)
FYI, our response will likely re-emphasize what IPPF and CIDA have maintained---that Canadian funding will not support abortion-related services---, but the decision is far from mine to make.  
Thanks very much, 
CIDA 
............
Hi CIDA, 
I hope you are well. 
I am happy to send you the IPPF Bangladesh Brief in response to the questions you have posed. I would like to particularly highlight that menstrual regulation is not a part of IPPF's proposal to CIDA. 
As discussed, our revised proposal focuses on the delivery of increased access to family planning services. 
I do apologise for the delay in sending this brief to you. As you know, our budget meetings have been ongoing this week, meaning we were a bit thin on the ground. Thank you for your patience and understanding! 
Please do let us know if you require any further information. We are always happy to help! 
With best wishes, 
IPPF
............ 
Hi IPPF, 
Thanks very much for the information! We appreciate your help, as always. I hope the budget meetings were fruitful. 
............
Then on March 15 2013 we see another similar exchanger between IPPF and CIDA.
...........
Hi IPPF, 
Further to our conversation today, I wanted to clarify something from your recent Semi-Annual Report. 
In a document you provided us a little while back entitled IPPF, Bangladesh and Menstrual Regulation, you indicate that "No Canadian money will be used for abortion services or menstrual regulation services." However, in your recent Semi-Annual report to CIDA (April-September 2012), menstrual regulation is listed as an activity undertaken by FPAB. 
Could you please confirm that, as per the document quoted above, CIDA funds are not used to cover these menstrual regulation services undertaken by FPAB? 
Many thanks ___. Wishing you a wonderful weekend! 
CIDA
............ 
Dear CIDA, 
I, ____ confirm that no funding from CIDA will be used for abortion services or menstrual regulation services including activities undertaken by FBAB in Bangladesh. 
As per the IPPF, Bangladesh and Menstrual Regulation brief, we confirm that FPAB does offer menstrual regulation services. This is in line with government regulations and other service providers in Bangladesh. 
However, no CIDA funds are used to support these activities. 
IPPF
Well there you have it folks. Right from the horse's mouth.
 
 
(The document in question that was in IPPF's semi-annual report.)