Michael Ignatieff is clearly moving his Liberal Party to the left on social issues. On Monday, he announced support for a universal daycare plan. Yesterday, he called upon Stephen Harper’s Conservative government to make abortion a key component of their efforts to improve maternal health and decrease infant mortality  (see the Toronto Star, National Post, Globe and Mail, LifeSiteNews, and the Canadian Press stories).

According to the Globe, Ignatieff said: “If we’re going to improve maternal health and child health around the world, women need access to the full gamut of reproductive health services.” I understand pushing abortion and contraception as a key component of a depopulation agenda — what better way to reduce population than preventing the next generation of children from being born.  I don’t like it, in fact I think it is barbaric and often racist, but there is a (sick) logic to it. I don’t understand pushing abortion and contraception as integral parts of improving maternal and infant health. According to extensive research, there are numerous medical and psychological ramifications to having an abortion. For information about the health consequences associated with abortion see the Elliot Institute and the book Women’s Health After Abortion by Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles.

The Harper government seems to want to focus on genuinely helping women in the developing world through the provision of clean water, inoculations, nutrition programs and other authentic health care and support. In world of finite resources, governments must choose between priorities. The Harper government is calling upon the G8 to support basic care that will measurably help tens of millions of women and children. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff wants to provide more abortion and contraception at the expense of less clean water and fewer inoculations; every dollar spent on condoms and abortion-performing midwives is a dollar not spent fighting malnutrition and unsafe deliveries. The impact of broadening the help development agencies and NGOs will provide will be to lessen the help these organizations can do. According to UNICEF — which is often criticized by pro-lifers for the organization’s pro-contraception, abortion, and sterilization policies — genuine health care and the provision of basic needs will go a long way to protecting both new mothers and their children:

At least 20% of the burden of disease in children below the age of 5 is related to poor maternal health and nutrition, as well as quality of care at delivery and during the newborn period. And yearly 8 million babies die before or during delivery or in the first week of life…

A majority of these [AIDS/HIV] deaths and disabilities are preventable, being mainly due to insufficient care during pregnancy and delivery. About 15 per cent of pregnancies and childbirths need emergency obstetric care because of complications that are difficult to predict.

Access to skilled care during pregnancy, childbirth and the first month after delivery is key to saving these women’s lives – and those of their children.

Pregnant women in Latin America, Africa and Asia need better food and vitamins, access to vaccines and skilled obstetric care, not abortion.

Governing is about making priorities. Harper and Ignatieff have both shown where their priorities are; Harper’s are heroic and urgently needed while Ignatieff’s are cynical and scary. I would also suggest that Ignatieff is playing to his pro-abortion base of feminists, sacrificing the health and lives of women and children in the developing world to a crass political calculation for his own benefit.

Another issue of concern is how Ignatieff made the announcement. According to LifeSiteNews, MPs such as Paul Szabo were caught off guard with his leader’s statement. The policy was not discussed in caucus. Is Ignatieff going to develop policy without input from his fellow Liberals? And what will pro-life Liberals, such as Szabo, do in response?