While gender barriers are being broken in Canada today, other countries are failing to meet the basic standards of maternal health care because of inequality and poverty.
“Inequality in decision-making, limited access to health services in rural areas and lack of information on healthy pregnancy are among the factors that contribute to maternal deaths,” said Masruchah, secretary-general of the National Commission on Violence against Women.
This story from Indonesia is further evidence that poverty and the gender divide, not lack of access to abortions, is a leading factor in the maternal mortality rates abroad.
“The maternity hospital suggested a C-section, but I didn’t have the money,” Juhri, a motorcycle taxi driver in Depok, a Jakarta suburb, said of the US$1,000-$1,500 procedure. “I took her to a midwife, but she could not handle the delivery.”
An emergency caesarian, if she’d had the power to demand/afford one, would have saved her life.
by 
This is exactly what I find most disturbing about the maternal health initiative – if we (read: they) decide to spend a portion of the limited amount of money available on abortion as the highest priority, then there will be less money available for situations such as these. How can people ignore these most basic of facts? It’s simple accounting. The mind boggles.
I had 3 c-sections, 1 emergency, 1 after failed VBAC, 1 because I didn’t like the risk of VBAC after 2 c-sections. I know that at least my 3rd child (and probably my 2nd as well) would not have survived a vaginal birth, nor would I. There were complications and it was the speed and skill of my OBGYN that made the difference and delivered my beautiful daughter.
Just one more way the pro-abortion league (I have switched from using “prochoice” in reaction to the extremism I’ve been reading lately) will continue to fail women, especially those who are marginalized already.
Heather! You’re back!
Congratulations on your daughter. I’m sorry to hear that there were some serious hiccups during the delivery, but so grateful to hear that you both are okay. Thank God for skilled medical professionals, and a health care system that will treat you in an emergency, so that you don’t have to worry about where next month’s grocery money will come from, because you paid for an emergency C-section this month.
“if we (read: they) decide to spend a portion of the limited amount of money available on abortion as the highest priority, then there will be less money available for situations such as these. How can people ignore these most basic of facts? It’s simple accounting. The mind boggles.”
I’m not too sure about this. Early abortion is, in general, not that expensive. A medical checkup, two pills, another checkup, and a list of symptoms that justify calling the doctor again immediatly. Providing up to nine months of monitoring, then a hospital birth, is expensive. Even in a pregnancy without complications. It’s quite possible that the abortions will work out cheaper overall.
“Just one more way the pro-abortion league (I have switched from using “prochoice” in reaction to the extremism I’ve been reading lately)”
I sometimes refer to the pro-life side as ‘pro-breeding’ for a similar reason. The most extreme voices on either side are always the loudest.
Suricou: I think you may have misunderstood me…or possibly the entire issue.
I have a problem with spending any of the allotted funds on abortion which kills children and which takes the “maternal” out of maternal health.
I have a HUGE problem spending these funds on abortion before we spend them on clean water, proper nutrition, sterile conditions, physician and other medical training, medications (those used to heal, to help, and to cure), and of course, the biggie that would have saved this woman’s life as it saved mine: free access to medical services designed to save the lives of both mother AND child.
And really… are you comparing something as intentionally degrading as “probreeding” (used by the way by various nefarious groups in our world’s history) to my use of the direct and honest “pro-abortion”?
Oy.
“And really… are you comparing something as intentionally degrading as “probreeding” (used by the way by various nefarious groups in our world’s history) to my use of the direct and honest “pro-abortion”?”
Yes. Pro-abortion is also intentionally degrading, and just as misleading. Even pro-choicers do not hope to see more abortions performed – we just regard it as an unpleasant necessity, or the least-undesireable of several undesireable options. Or as something which must be permitted for reasons of womens’ rights.
“Even pro-choicers do not hope to see more abortions performed – we just regard it as an unpleasant necessity, or the least-undesireable of several undesireable options.”
Then why the hell are you pushing for increased access? In third world countries? Where there isn’t even close to enough basic medical care?
Suricou, you are across the ocean from here, in a country that has at least a few restrictions on abortion. Please do not claim to understand the pro-abortion mentality in Canada.
“Then why the hell are you pushing for increased access? In third world countries? Where there isn’t even close to enough basic medical care?”
Because it’s an option we believe should be available, for those women who choose it. Also, we tend to regard abortion as part of basic medical care. It doesn’t have to be used, it just has to be available.
Least unpleasant, as I said.