Memo to Keith Martin: your partisan politicking isn’t supported by many pro-choice groups. Truly, it’s an interesting state of affairs when pro-abortion supporters are standing in the way of women’s health.
“People here are perplexed and wondering why Canada is rolling back the clock and depriving women in developing countries from having the same rights to basic health care and access to abortion as women in Canada,” said Keith Martin, a Liberal MP who defected from the Tories in 2004.
“They’re mystified as to why the Canadian government has taken this position.”
As Keith Martin sits mystified, people like Melinda Gates, Bev Oda, and Ban Ki-moon remain committed to improving maternal health in the developing world, even without abortion in the agenda.
Teresa Chiesa, CARE Canada’s program manager for Africa, said the [maternal health] meeting was a success as stakeholders from all over the world committed to ensuring that the rate of maternal deaths — those occurring during pregnancy, childbirth or in the 42 days after delivery — continues its downward trend.
“It’s been a brilliant conference with the Gates commitment, and financial commitments from the U.S. government and Norway — there are going to be the resources we need to get behind the initiatives,” she said.
But Canada’s stance on abortion was indeed a topic of discussion among delegates in the crowded corridors of the Washington Convention Center this week, Chiesa said.
If Martin continues to be boggled by the lack of abortion funding, he may find himself on the sidelines while the committed make headway on the pressing issue of getting resources to the places they are most needed.
by 
The lack of humility in those attacking Canada’s stance on no funding abortion is amazing to me. Up until very recently, almost everyone who wrote on the subject over the last 2000 years felt that the unborn were persons. Today, quite probably the majority of people in the world think that the unborn are persons. These facts would make me second guess things if I was pro abortion.
If the VAST majority of people who have ever lived are right, then amnesty and other groups critical of not funding abortion are saying that there is a group of persons who can be murdered. Not just that, but some people injure themselves while trying to murder them and so we need more systematic ways of murdering this group of persons we feel can be murdered. Not just that but it is immoral to not support state sponsored annihilation of these persons as other people can die while trying to kill them unless their murder is state run.
Now I’m aware it’s VERY emotive language. But if the unborn are persons, as almost everyone who has ever lived has thought (at least almost everyone over the last 2000 years) then we can read the paragraph above and think of Jewish people, black people, Canadian people, Latvian people as that group of persons who some think are less than worthy of life. Just imagine that the overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived are right and that the paragraph above referring to the unborn is no less horrific than if it referred to Jewish people, or black people or any other group of persons who have suffered state sponsored murder throughout history.
Does this not give those critical of the Canadian govmts position pause for thought? Even if they don’t agree with it, does the sheer dangerousness of the language, it’s horrible similarity to dehumanizing mass murder during genocides, slavery or other blights on the history of humankind not make them second guess themselves just for a second? How can they muster the self righteousness they show given the gravity of the situation if they’re wrong? This is something that I just can’t understand.