Abortion: The debate about the debate

On The House this past weekend, James Fitz-Morris had this story on the show. Below is a modified script and the audio of the piece for you to listen to:

An old debate has taken on a strange tone on Parliament Hill in the last few weeks.

The issue of abortion has been front and centre as the government slowly releases more of what it intends to do with its Maternal Health Initiative for the G8.

Or - perhaps more to the point - what it won't do.

After weeks of speculation and recriminations, International Development Minister Bev Oda clarified at least part of the position this week, while meeting with her G8 counterparts in Halifax:

"Within the scope of this G8 initiative, countries will be able to identify their own priorities. Canada's contribution to maternal and child health may involve various interventions including family planning which includes the use of contraceptive methods. The details remain to be determined, however, Canada's contribution will not include funding of abortions."

Before people get out their pens and start writing their letters to the CBC ombudsman - I'm not going to talk about the merits or pitfalls of the pro-life or pro-choice side of this debate.

In fact, what I'm talking about is that few people want to talk about it. In fact, there is a debate about having a debate.

We start in the House of Commons - where for a few weeks now - each side has blasted the other for - of all things - trying to open a debate.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff: "The government is reversing a 25 year-old position of consensus in Canada on this question."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "The fact of the matter is that Canadians want to see their foreign aid money used for things that will save the lives of women and children in ways that unite the Canadian people."

In fairness, it was Harper who first opened the door to this topic.

Last January, Harper penned a letter to the editor that appeared in some newspapers.

In it, he announced Canada's intention of using its chairmanship of the G8 to push for a Maternal and Child health initiative for the developing world.

The statistics of women who die during child birth and infants who die in their first month of life are nothing short of appalling.

So it's important to note every one agrees with the principle.

For example, here's Harper making the announcement: "We're sponsoring an initiative to help save the lives of mothers and children around the world."

And Conservative MP Jim Abbott on the initiative: "8.8 million children die every year from causes that could easily be prevented by interventions that cost pennies."

And NDP leader Jack Layton: "Improving women's health, yes. reducing mortality of children, absolutely."

Now here's the part where the callous nature of politics raises its head.

The Conservative party is looking to get a majority government next election - that means getting more votes.

Traditionally, the party hasn't done as well with women voters as it could, so this initiative, while designed to save lives, was also hoped to have the side effect of increasing Conservative support among women voters.

Those voters are going to come from other parties...so enter the opposition to - not criticize the program - but ask for more information.

Liberal MP Bob Rae: "Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to understand the government's position more clearly."

In hopes of tarnishing any gains the Conservatives are making with so-called progressive voters, the opposition says abortion must be a part of the whole basket of maternal health solutions.

Well, actually, the opposition didn't say abortion - at least not at first - they looked for all kinds of euphemisms to avoid the a-word.
  
This is Ignatieff hinting at it in February.

"We want to make sure women have access to ALL the contraceptive methods available to control their fertility. Because we don't want to have women dying because of botched procedures - we don't want to have women dying in misery."

While trying to win back any pro-choice voters - the opposition parties at first didn't want to offend the anti-abortion side of the debate.

It apparently took a visit by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Ottawa to break the taboo of using the a-word here.

"You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health, and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal and safe abortion."

So, now that's out in the open - that means we can have an open and honest debate about it?

Right? Not quite.

Instead things descended into a debate about having a debate - with each side accusing the other of wanting to....well...debate.

Jim Abbott: "It is those members who want to create a debate in Canada that no one wants - no one wants."
Bob Rae: "I mean, they have this great double talk where they say they don't want to reopen the abortion debate. Well, they just did."
        
The line from both sides is that no one wants to have a debate on abortion.
The issue is divisive, the question has been settled...in other words,  leave it alone.
But despite the government's protestations, there are those who want a debate.

Rod Bruinooge is the Conservative MP for Winnipeg South.

"I think it's valid to be able to discuss the topic of abortion in Canada, I think," he says.

Bruinooge describes himself as a defender of the rights of the unborn - and he's not afraid to talk about the subject.

"To suggest it is ineligible for discussion, I think, does a disservice to our discourse here in our nation's capital."

Bruinooge believes the phrase "reopening the abortion debate" really means using the a-word in any public forum.

While he personally disagrees with his own government's position on whether or not there should be a debate - he says the Prime Minister and Cabinet are well within their rights to focus on other priority areas.

And to not let abortion hijack all the government's initiatives.

But Liberal MP Hedy Fry says the government is trying to confuse the issues about what's really up for debate.

"Nobody's talking about Canada here; we're supposed to be talking about the developing world."

Fry says she has all her arguments ready and is set to debate anyone on the topic, but she feels it's unnecessary.Because the question in Canada is settled; so there's no need to re-examine it. Fry accuses the government of trying to have it both ways - to not offend one side of the debate - while giving the other at least part of what it wants.    

"You don't cherry pick. You don't pick and choose. And you don't say I'm going to please a Canadian public while I'm playing with the lives of non-Canadian people. You can't do that."

I think Hedy Fry may have been saying more than she intended there.

In that the government can't pick and choose which aspects of maternal health it will fund.

She means philosophically that would be right, but in speaking to some aid groups I've learned that it's actually very difficult logistically for government to do that.

When you're providing health services in a small African village - there isn't an abortion specialist set up in an abortion clinics doing nothing but that all day.

There is an Obstetrician/Gynecologist, or another specialist, or perhaps a generalist who is providing a variety of services at a clinic or a hospital (or perhaps in a tent.)

It's not like here in Canada where you slap down your health card and if the service you want is covered by medicare, you get it.

These programs aren't set up in the developing world - and the doctors don't work under a procedure by procedure basis.
    
Aid groups say governments could simply direct money to training local health care providers.
And Canada could say it doesn't want to train doctors in certain procedures - such as abortion.
The aid groups say they will get the money for that from another country.
As long as the G8 plan is comprehensive - aid groups don't really care what each individual country says its doing because the money and the aid is all going into one pot.

So this debate as to whether Canada will fund abortions abroad or not is really a distinction without a difference.

Back to the question of whether the government's hope to make political gains has born any fruit?

It's tough to say because this is such a divisive issue. Many people are pretty firmly entrenched in each side without a lot of movement.

Anecdotally, this didn't win the Conservatives a big surge among women voters.

That said, I think it's incorrect to say the Conservatives are only playing to their base again, ie. to the far right and the religious right. This is an issue that resonates in a number of communities. For example, minorities groups from conservative parts of the world (those similar to groups the Conservatives sought out with the issue of same sex marriage.)

And similar to that issue, the Government says it isn't going to change the law here in Canada, but it is making sure anyone who isn't one hundred percent comfortable with abortion knows they have a home in the Conservative party.