Oh dear. What a terrible editorial:
The Harper government has taken an illogical stance by refusing to include contraception in its well received initiative to reduce the death rates of mothers and babies in poor countries. Although studies show mortality rates grow for women who have too many children too close together, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told a Commons committee that a new program being spearheaded by Canada “does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed the purpose of this is to be able to save lives.”
My two cents: Not including “family planning,” a term which tends to include abortion, in a maternal health initiative is perfectly reasonable.
I’m quite sure we can all see how there would be many facets to maternal health. I’m quite sure we can all see how one government can’t address all aspects. And I’m also quite sure we can all agree that since some people insist on including abortion in “family planning” that’s a mandate a neutral government should stay away from.
Oh wait, though. When it’s anti-abortion, it’s ideological, radical, religious and right wing. When it’s pro-abortion, it’s rational, neutral and scientific.
My fault for forgetting that the debate is “over” and that we’ve achieved “consensus” on this “divisive” topic.by