G8 Countries Launch Global Initiative on Maternal Health without Reference to Abortion

C-FAM / Volume 13, Number 29 / July 1, 2010
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1657/pub_detail.asp

By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.
Co-Authored by Nick Dunn

TORONTO, July 2 (C-FAM) The Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial countries held their annual forum here last week and, following the lead of the Canadian government, launched a new global initiative on maternal and child health. The Muskoka Initiative pledges “to accelerate progress” towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) dealing with maternal and child health. While the host government was successful in keeping references to abortion out of the final document, the initiative calls for G8 countries to “commit to promote integration of HIV and sexual and reproductive health, rights and services within the broader context of strengthening health systems.”

Since announcing his plan for an initiative to improve maternal health in January, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had insisted that it would contain no funding of abortion, but would include clean water, sanitation, better nutrition, and treatment and prevention of diseases. Beverley Oda, Canada’s International Cooperation Minister, has said that the government would consider the use of family planning methods such as contraception, but reinforced its opposition to abortion funding.

The initiative has as one of its global targets “universal access to reproductive health by 2015”—a direct allusion to MDG 5b, a controversial target that was never accepted by Member States in the negotiations of the MDGs, but only included in the annex of a report by the United Nations (UN) Secretary General.

The G8 initiative has drawn the support of pro-abortion organizations, such as the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and Planned Parenthood. Thoraya Obaid, UNFPA’s Executive Director, praised the initiative earlier this week, particularly its emphasis on “expanding sexual and reproductive health services.”

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the Muskoka Initiative “an important step forward,” but noted her frustration with Harper’s opposition to the inclusion of abortion in improving maternal health. “No effective maternal health improvements can occur without comprehensive reproductive health care, including access to safe and legal abortions,” Richards says.

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacted to Harper’s announcement that there would be an initiative to improve maternal health, saying: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions.” Over 100 women’s rights groups agreed, and last week wrote Harper a letter, urging him to include access to contraception and safe abortion in the initiative.

Abortion advocates usually cite research suggesting that maternal deaths could be cut by up to 70 percent with a greater emphasis on access to “safe” abortion and family planning. However, this “research” was sponsored by the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) and UNFPA, not exactly a neutral source on this issue.

In fact, the newest available research shows that there is no verifiable data to back the claim that abortion improves maternal and child health, and reveals lower maternal mortality rates in countries with more restrictions on abortions.

G8 pledges to the Muskoka Initiative totaled $5 billion, including $1.3 billion from the United States over two years, while another $2.3 billion came from non-G8 countries and the Gates Foundation.

Eyewitness to partial birth abortion

Statement of Brenda Pratt Shafer, R.N.
Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Hearing on The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833)
March 21, 1996

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Judiciary Committee, I am Brenda Pratt Shafer. I am here before you, at the request of the Committee, to relate to you my experience as an eyewitness to what is now known as the partial-birth abortion procedure.

I am a registered nurse, licensed in the State of Ohio, with 14 years of experience. In 1993, I was employed by Kimberly Quality Care, a nursing agency in Dayton, Ohio. In September, 1993, Kimberly Quality Care asked me to accept assignment at the Women’s Medical Center, which is operated by Dr. Martin Haskell. I readily accepted the assignment because I was at that time very pro-choice. I had even told my teenage daughters that if one of them ever got pregnant at a young age, I would make them get an abortion. They disagreed with me on this, and one of them even wrote an essay for a high school class that mentioned how we differed on the issue. So, because of the strong pro-choice views that I held at that time, I thought this assignment would be no problem for me.

But I was wrong. I stood at a doctor’s side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure– and what I saw is branded forever on my mind. I worked as an assistant nurse at Dr. Haskell’s clinic for three days– September 28, 29, and 30, 1993.

On the first day, we assisted in some first-trimester abortions, which is all I’d expected to be involved in. (I remember that one of the patients was a 15-year-old-girl who was having her third abortion.) On the second day, I saw Dr. Haskell do a second-trimester procedure that is called a D & E (dilation and evacuation). He used ultrasound to examine the fetus. Then he used forceps to pull apart the baby inside the uterus, bringing it out piece by piece and piece, throwing the pieces in a pan.Also on the first two days, we inserted laminaria to dilate the cervixes of women who were being prepared for the partial-birth abortions– those who were past the 20 weeks point, or 4 1\2 months. (Dr. Haskell called this procedure “D & X”, for dilation and extraction.) There were six or seven of these women.

On the third day, Dr. Haskell asked me to observe as he performed several of the procedures that are the subject of this hearing. Although I was in that clinic on assignment of the agency, Dr. Haskell was interested in hiring me full time, and I was being given orientation in the entire range of procedures provided at that facility. I was present for three of these partial-birth procedures. It is the first one that I will describe to you in detail. The mother was six months pregnant (26 1/2 weeks). A doctor told her that the baby had Down Syndrome and she decided to have an abortion. She came in the first two days to have the laminaria inserted and changed, and she cried the whole time.

On the third day she came in to receive the partial-birth procedure. Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms– everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus.The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched the doctor do these things.

Mr. Chairman, I read in the paper that President Clinton says that he is going to veto this bill. If President Clinton had been standing where I was standing at that moment, he would not veto this bill. Dr. Haskell delivered the baby’s head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw that baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he’d used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just “reflexes.”I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death– people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed the baby to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, “I’m so sorry, please forgive me!” I was crying too. I couldn’t take it. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I have ever seen. [He supposedly had Down Syndrome, remember?]I was present in the room during two more such procedures that day, but I was really in shock. I tried to pretend that I was somewhere else, to not think about what was happening. I just couldn’t wait to get out of there.

After I left that day, I never went back. These last two procedures, by the way, involved healthy mothers with healthy babies. I was very much affected by what I had seen. For a long time, sometimes still, I had nightmares about what I saw in that clinic that day. Mr. Chairman, these people who say I didn’t see what I saw– I wish they were right. I wish I hadn’t seen it. But I did see it, and I will never be able to forget it. That baby boy was only inches, seconds away from being entirely born, when he was killed. What I saw done to that little boy, and to those other babies, should not be allowed in this country.
Thank you.

Source