The opposition however tried to push the issue up until the last moment:
Former Canadian prime minister Paul Martin talks to TheMark.com about abortion and maternal health. He starts off well enough clarifying a matter that many people do not understand: abortions in the developing world are not done in safe conditions because few are performed in hospitals or by doctors. In that sense, it is like any surgery that is performed in unhygienic conditions with few modern technologies and medicines, even when done by trained medical professionals. However, whereas pro-lifers would suggest that it is precisely because of the absence of that health care infrastructure, foreign aid directed to maternal health should focus on cost-effective, manageable interventions such as vaccinations, clean water, nutrition, and safe deliveries.And then again, why would anyone recommend killing children to lower child mortality?
Considering the lack of medical infrastructure and trained medical professionals, increasing funding for abortion is effectively increasing funding for unsafe abortions. Many will be relatively safer, but they will still be unsafe.
President Bush, you may recall, refused to fund UNPFA because it promotes abortion, including coerced abortion in China, although President Obama restored the funding. So when UNFPA mentions "reproductive health," it is code for abortion.Jill Stanek is right as always.
This is corroborated by analyzing the "global action plan on women's and children's health," which calls to:Fully integrate the following into all primary health-care facilities: family planning, HIV/AIDS services, abortion-related care (where legal), and maternal, newborn and child care.It is insane to advocate killing children as a solution to childhood mortality.
Now, once the G8/G20 and the issue of abortion funding in the third world is behind us, let's see if there's anything the that could be done (and that the government would be willing to do) to reduce the number of abortions on demand here in Canada.