Federal Planned Parenthood Funding
Well, that's not good news. That the federal government has not responded to a request for continued funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation strikes a clanging bell of discordance. With Canadian values, primarily. This does not bode well for trust in the current, Conservative-led government. This is an issue that should concern everyone, regardless of their political orientation.
Looking at the activities of the group in the round the work that they do on behalf of humanity in aiding and assisting women in controlling their fertility, in seeking and finding practical alternatives to ongoing pregnancies in situations where children are born in health-averse conditions, many of whom die at an early age, succumbing to various dread illnesses.
The cost-benefit analysis of spending a mere trifling $6-million yearly to keep the IPPF afloat is obviously not a question of whether or not Canada can 'afford' to dispense those supporting funds. It is a question of whether Canada can afford not to dispense those funds enabling the IPPF to continue their vital, life-saving work.
This is a reproduction health organization with a long-standing partnership with the Canadian International Development Agency. Its vast outreach and assistance to women in dire need of help is immeasurable in its impact. If anything, the modest support it receives through government funding should be increased.
"We haven't heard if our proposal for renewal will be accepted or rejected and we've had no indication of when we might hear from CIDA. Currently, we are funding our ongoing services from our reserves, but there is a finite amount of time we can continue to do this without having to start to reduce spending on vital services in developing countries."
Paul Bell, senior communications officer at IPPF minces no words: if that funding is lost, it would result in "devastating consequences", on the ability of the federation to continue their work, on the expectations of help to reduce the mortality rate of women in pregnancies, of their children left motherless.
Through that truly modest funding the agency helps in the operation of over 58,000 international facilities providing a full range of services inclusive of gynecology, counselling, sexually-transmitted infection treatment, HIV-related care, contraception, and maternal and child health services. A tiny proportion of their services relate to abortion-related services.
IPPF's activities were responsible in 2008 - 2009 for providing 47.5 million family planning, maternal and child health, obstetric and pediatric services. In comparison to that number of overall maternal and pediatric health-related services, 1.1 million abortion services were provided.
Abortion services are inextricably linked to the total health-service provision package. An important and needed part of the package would be lacking without the inclusion of abortion, when appropriate to a given situation.
If, as it seems to be, this is a deliberate stalling tactic on the part of the current government, leading to a final declaration of non-funding for the IPPF, this would represent a true tragedy. Not only would Canadians, through the action of their government, be responsible for refusing to render help where required in developing countries.
We would be failing in the crucial test of our own responsible human-rights morality.
Looking at the activities of the group in the round the work that they do on behalf of humanity in aiding and assisting women in controlling their fertility, in seeking and finding practical alternatives to ongoing pregnancies in situations where children are born in health-averse conditions, many of whom die at an early age, succumbing to various dread illnesses.
The cost-benefit analysis of spending a mere trifling $6-million yearly to keep the IPPF afloat is obviously not a question of whether or not Canada can 'afford' to dispense those supporting funds. It is a question of whether Canada can afford not to dispense those funds enabling the IPPF to continue their vital, life-saving work.
This is a reproduction health organization with a long-standing partnership with the Canadian International Development Agency. Its vast outreach and assistance to women in dire need of help is immeasurable in its impact. If anything, the modest support it receives through government funding should be increased.
"We haven't heard if our proposal for renewal will be accepted or rejected and we've had no indication of when we might hear from CIDA. Currently, we are funding our ongoing services from our reserves, but there is a finite amount of time we can continue to do this without having to start to reduce spending on vital services in developing countries."
Paul Bell, senior communications officer at IPPF minces no words: if that funding is lost, it would result in "devastating consequences", on the ability of the federation to continue their work, on the expectations of help to reduce the mortality rate of women in pregnancies, of their children left motherless.
Through that truly modest funding the agency helps in the operation of over 58,000 international facilities providing a full range of services inclusive of gynecology, counselling, sexually-transmitted infection treatment, HIV-related care, contraception, and maternal and child health services. A tiny proportion of their services relate to abortion-related services.
IPPF's activities were responsible in 2008 - 2009 for providing 47.5 million family planning, maternal and child health, obstetric and pediatric services. In comparison to that number of overall maternal and pediatric health-related services, 1.1 million abortion services were provided.
Abortion services are inextricably linked to the total health-service provision package. An important and needed part of the package would be lacking without the inclusion of abortion, when appropriate to a given situation.
If, as it seems to be, this is a deliberate stalling tactic on the part of the current government, leading to a final declaration of non-funding for the IPPF, this would represent a true tragedy. Not only would Canadians, through the action of their government, be responsible for refusing to render help where required in developing countries.
We would be failing in the crucial test of our own responsible human-rights morality.
Labels: Canada, Charity, Human Relations
posted by Pieface @ 2:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home