I understand that there are many people who believe in the need to internationally fund abortion in destitute areas as a method of supporting equal rights for women. But what I don’t get is that these same people–who claim to care oh, so much about impoverished women and children–would interfere with a Canadian initiative to fund maternal and infant health initiatives to reduce maternal death rates and the like–unless abortion is included.
The need for assistance is undeniable. From The Corner:
The numbers are shocking: In Sierra Leone, 16 percent of all infants perish, and 28 percent of all children die before they reach the age of five. In thirteen countries in sub-Saharan Africa, more than 1,000 women die in childbirth for every 100,000 live births. In Afghanistan, one in eight women will die as a result of bearing children. All in all, 99 percent of maternal deaths worldwide occur in developing countries.
But the international consensus to relieve this horror is floundering on the rocks of abortion.
Globally, divergent groups and organizations have banded together to find ways to reduce maternal and infant deaths, and to call attention to this largely neglected issue. This coalition has recognized that women and children have often been a marginalized political constituency, and that the deaths of poor women have often not mattered enough to draw the attention necessary to leverage policy or funding commitments…Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs. But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus. Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”
If the USA and other countries derail this important initiative in a snit because of the abortion issue, it will reveal that their concern for the world’s poor women is more show than substance. Indeed, even if one believes that open access to abortion is a crucial issue, if that can’t be obtained, you should still support what can be achieved to help women and young children in desperate straits. That is, you would unless the symbolism of the abortion license is more important to you than the actual lives of the very women and young children you claim to want to protect.
June 26th, 2010 | 11:35 am
Similarly, I don’t understand why people who claim to care oh, so much about impoverished women and children would veto an expansion of health insurance coverage because it MIGHT be used to cover abortions. (I’m talking about Governor Parnell’s veto of expanding Denali KidCare in Alaska.)
June 26th, 2010 | 12:06 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Lisa, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Sacrificing Maternal and Infant Lives on the Altar of Abortion? » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/m8o5O [...]
June 26th, 2010 | 8:59 pm
Good post, Wesley. Let me add that FGM is part of the cause of these maternal deaths and also infant deaths. FGM with infibulation causes delayed birth and terrible trauma to the mother in birth. If the birth is unattended (as many of these are) and not at a good hospital, C-section is not an option. So fighting FGM will be part of reducing these maternal and infant deaths. I’m not sure we can depend on the administration to do that, either.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Lydia: Female Genital Mutilation and birth deaths, I had never made the connection. Thanks.
June 27th, 2010 | 6:57 am
The reason abortion has to be included in any funding of family planning and health for women in undeveloped countries, is that provision of safe legal abortion saves women’s lives. There’s a recent article here about the tragedies caused by denying access to safe legal abortion in undeveloped countries.
If you care about the lives and healthy wellbeing of impoverished women and children, then you care about making sure they are not denied access to safe legal abortion. Simple as that. People who care more about denying women access to abortion than about providing women with healthcare, plainly do NOT care about women’s health and women’s lives.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 27th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Jesurgislac: Baloney. But for argument’s sake, let’s assume you are right. That with full abortion coverage and maternal/infant benefits, 100 lives could be saved. But without it, 65 lives could be saved. With nothing, zero lives would be saved. You are saying better to have zero saved than the 65. That is nuts.
June 27th, 2010 | 4:52 pm
Wesley, there’s no link to source documents or the full Clinton quote (in the NRO article) so I have no reason to believe the Obama administration is obstructing this initiative in any way.
The full quote may well have been something like: “While we support any plan to improve maternal and fetal help this administration continues to believe that you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 27th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
From what I read in preparing to write that post, the initiative is in trouble. Time will tell.
June 27th, 2010 | 4:56 pm
The “amended” quote above should read “While we support any plan to improve maternal and child health . . .“
June 29th, 2010 | 11:29 am
It always surprises me how people concerned about the infant mortality rate say the only way to fix it is to kill them off before they have a chance to live and affect the statistics.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Because shirley elizabeth, it ain’t about that.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact