Canada pays for emergency contraception and abortion care in Afghanistan

Elizabeth Payne reported in today's Ottawa Citizen on my posting that revealed that CIDA/DFATD is funding emergency contraception in Afghanistan through IPPF.

What she didn't say, is that my ATIP also revealed that we are funding "safe abortion care".

The first thing that's worrisome about the Citizen article, is that NDP international development critic  Hélène Laverdière thinks that the emergency contraception used (Postinor-2) is not abortion.

“It’s not abortion, it is contraception". 

In fact the information provided by the manufacturer says that:

"Postinor-2 is not intended as a regular method of contraception." 

That's because, emergency contraception is an abortifacient if the egg has already been fertilized (i.e it prevents implantation in the uterus, killing the embryo). Wishful thinking, doesn't make it true.

Then Ms. Laverdière says:

"I don’t see why if it is a choice for Canadian women, it cannot be a choice offered to Afghan women.”

Now this is really out there. Shouldn't Ms. Laverdière, in her role as international development critic, know that abortion (including emergency contraception) is illegal in Afghanistan?

As I noted in that blog posting, the Population Research Institute says that:

"The current Afghanistan abortion law mandates a seven-year prison term and a monetary fine for each abortion performed. The only exception requires the written opinion of physicians, and a judicial review. According to strict and clear guidelines promulgated by the Ministry of Justice, this same law would apply to anyone who has prescribed “morning-after pills” or “emergency contraception” in Afghanistan, or even to anyone carrying these devices in the country."

And finally this from DFATD in the Citizen article:

"Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Amy Mills, quoting the World Health Organization. “WHO confirms that: ‘Levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills are not effective once the process of implantation has begun, and they will not cause abortion,’ ” she wrote in an email, adding, “DFATD funds are not used to fund abortion.”

I beg to differ. Canada is funding emergency contraception and abortion care in Afghanistan.

Abortion by any other name...

Canadian money to IPPF for funding "safe abortion care" and "emergency contraception" in Afghanistan

Despite assurances by the Federal government that no Canadian money given to IPPF would go towards abortion, my latest ATIP to CIDA/DFATD revealed that IPPF is buying "emergency contraception" (34,000 units of the Abbot drug Postinor -2 (Levonorgestrel)). They are also providing "safe abortion care" in Afghanistan.

As we know, "emergency contraception" is taken after sexual intercourse for the purpose of "preventing" pregnancy, but it functions as an abortifacient if fertilization has already occurred (it prevents implantation of the embryo, thus destroying the life of the newly conceived human being.)

(See below for page 30 from the IPPF Annual Report Year 2 (1 April 2012 - 31 March 2013) and page 88 from the IPPF Midyear Report (1 April to 30 September 2013).

In fact, according to this medical leaflet, Postinor-2 is only used as emergency contraception:

"Postinor-2 is an emergency contraceptive only. Postinor-2 is not intended as a regular method of contraception. It is used to prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. It is estimated that Postinor-2 will prevent 85% of expected pregnancies. 95% of expected pregnancies will be prevented if taken within the first 24 hours, declining to 58% if taken between 48 hours and 72 hours after unprotected intercourse."

Not only that. Apparently AFGA's abortion services "needs improvement." (Afghan Family Guidance Association is an associate member of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and receives funding from IPPF).

Why is AFGA providing abortion care, when we aren't even supposed to be funding abortion services in these countries?

This is what the Population Research Institute says about the legality of abortion, and emergency contraception in Afghanistan:

"The current Afghanistan abortion law mandates a seven-year prison term and a monetary fine for each abortion performed. The only exception requires the written opinion of physicians, and a judicial review. According to strict and clear guidelines promulgated by the Ministry of Justice, this same law would apply to anyone who has prescribed “morning-after pills” or “emergency contraception” in Afghanistan, or even to anyone carrying these devices in the country."

IPPF states in their annual report that this funding is directed towards:

"women, girls, men and boys who need access to reproductive health services and information. Clients reached throughout this project are female, male, young and old, couples and families in five countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania). The project prioritizes vulnerable individuals and groups, and also young people, especially young women. Seventy per cent of all the clients served through the project are poor, marginalized, socially excluded and/or underserved, while 33% of all clients are young people, aged between 15-25 years."

Are these poor, marginalized and vulnerable young women, even told what emergency contraceptive is? That it doesn't necessarily prevent conception--i.e. that if fertilization (conception) has occurred, it destroys that newly conceived life by preventing implantation. In other words, are these poor, marginalized and vulnerable clients giving their informed consent?

By all accounts, this is a pretty clear indication to me, that we are providing abortion services in Afghanistan. Abortion services that are specifically excluded from the terms and conditions of the $6 million dollar grant we gave to IPPF.

This should cause us grave concern.

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.)