'CIDA does not and has not itemized the spectrum of medical interventions performed by every one of these organizations' - Macleans.ca
 

‘CIDA does not and has not itemized the spectrum of medical interventions performed by every one of these organizations’


 

Further to comments made by the minister yesterday, here is an email exchange with Bev Oda’s office last evening. Make of it what you will.

Q. Just to clarify then, since the U.S. approach has been raised, what is the Canadian policy on foreign aid, government funding, non-governmental organizations and abortion?

A. We are not changing our policy. CIDA does not directly fund any project specifically aimed at increasing the availability of abortion. We have not in the past and we will not in the future. CIDA has funded many women’s health initiatives, hospitals and clinics around the world.  CIDA does not and has not itemized the spectrum of medical interventions performed by every one of these organizations.

Q. But the Canadian government has funded groups (Planned Parenthood, for example) that promote access to abortion, correct? In addition to not “directly” funding any project related specifically to abortion, does the Canadian government now plan to avoid funding any groups or organizations (like Planned Parenthood) that include abortion in their mandate?

A. CIDA does not directly fund any project specifically aimed at increasing the availability of abortion. CIDA has funded many women’s health initiatives around the world.  CIDA does not and has not itemized the spectrum of medical interventions performed by every one of these organizations. The G8 initiative does not change existing CIDA programming. IPPF (Planned Parenthood) has submitted an application for funding.  This application is currently being considered.


 

‘CIDA does not and has not itemized the spectrum of medical interventions performed by every one of these organizations’

  1. That second response is quite the non-answer.

  2. CIDA does not and has not itemized the spectrum of medical interventions performed by every one of these organizations.

    Don't ask, don't tell?

    • It's STFU all over again.

    • Interesting analogy – activists pushed Clinton to drop the ban on gays in the military when the political timing was wrong, and they ended up with don't ask, don't tell. We'll be lucky if Mr. Ignatieff's tactics here have as benevolent an outcome. Canada wasn't ready for a stronger stance on abortion funding, Mr. Ignatieff did not have a strategy for persuading Canadians to adopt one and we've ended up with the sub-optimal status quo deteriorating as a result.

  3. Bet we'll hear those very informative talking points repeated a dozen or more times in QP and the media.

  4. This would seem to mean that the government is and will be funding the full spectrum of family planning and women's health programs, including counselling and access to abortion, but that they don't want to directly say so. I doubt any Canadian aid has ever gone to programs specifically targeted to abortion, so that part is a non-statement.

    However, as to believing this latest statement — other government statements have suggested otherwise. So who knows what the truth is. I suspect Harper & his crew want it this way so that they can say different things to different groups.

    • A the 'pander-to-the-base-but-don't-piss-off-the-mainstream' tightrope.

    • It's also saying there's no effort to create a Bush-style ban – organizations that support abortion through advocacy, provision or funding will stil receive Canadian funding, although Canada might require the money not be spent on abortion. Canadian policy, under Liberal and Conservative governments, has always been ambiguous here because abortion funding makes Canadians uncomfortable. If this exercise was likely to produce a clear Canadian policy affirming support for abortion funding, it would be useful. Otherwise, we're indulging Liberal electoral tactics that are pushing to a bad policy outcome.

      • "organizations that support abortion through advocacy, provision or funding will stil receive Canadian funding"

        Um, no.

        She is being quite disingenuous when she states merely that "IPPF (Planned Parenthood) has submitted an application for funding. This application is currently being considered."

        Harper has cut 98% of all government funding to IPPF already. The only thing that is being "considered" is whether to cut 99% or 99.9% (but not 100% to avoid claims that "all" funding had been cut and to be able to mislead by saying that "some" funding was still being provided).

        They are one of the 20+ women's groups (including women training, eduction and shelter groups) whose funding has been cut by Harper.

        • Harper has cut 98% of all government funding to IPPF already. The only thing that is being "considered" is whether to cut 99% or 99.9% (but not 100% to avoid claims that "all" funding had been cut and to be able to mislead by saying that "some" funding was still being provided).

          Huh? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up? According to you, the IPPF funding will be cut from $6 million p.a. to $60,000 p.a.?

          • Oh, CR, when will you learn.

            And when will you learn about google. Here is a Christian magazine bragging about the gutting of Planned Parenthood. They actually say 99% has been cut already, but I thought it was a mere 98%. I could be wrong about that.

            But you sound alarmed at such an accusation. Presumably, if true, you would be equally alarmed that Harper is in fact going around gutting organizations like Planned Parenthood by 99% and Match by 75%?

          • (See Ted's identical comment, further down in the thread, for my response).

  5. Parliament has already voted on Canada funding 3rd World abortions…..and voted NO.

    Parliament is supreme.
    Liberals should respect the will of Parliament.

    • You are absolutely delightful.

      I'm sure the NDP is looking for people to knock on doors asking the government to respect their Kyoto plus Bill. I'm sure you can find the appropriate contact information on their website.

  6. Wouldn't a ban on funding groups tied to family planning be a Charter violation?

    • I don't see on what grounds. Nobody has an inalieable "right" to taxpayer money.

    • No. The IPPF has been funded directly by Canada to the tune of $6 million p.a.. This whole discussion is about international aid, not funding for domestic organizations that fall under the IPPF umbrella. By conflating the two, you're muddying the waters.

      • I think Ted's got a point. This government is reducing funding for the domestic arm of this group and not very quickly renewing the funding for the international arm. That's pretty suggestive. Of course, there may be broader cuts to federal grants that puts this in perspective and shows that the federal government is not disproportionately targetting women's and reproductive rights groups. That's usually the explanation.

        • One could argue that the domestic organization doesn't have much of a raison d'etre here in Canada, where it is pretty much redundant as an advocacy group. The services it provides, such as printing pamphlets and running "awareness campaigns" about sexual health, are duplicated not only by provincial health agencies, but also by many other nonprofit organizations.

          • I'm not sure reproductive rights and sexual health are quite as well-served as you imply. If you look at the wikipedia entry on abortion in Canada, you'll see there are gaps in access and efforts in Alberta to avoid paying for the procedure. Similarly, the Ontario government just canned its new sex ed curriculum because parents thought it was too explicit. Education experts disagreed. In that environment, CFSH could be making a meaningful contribution.

  7. Wherry, with answers like that you may as well just run for office and ask them in the House. More $$ in it for you.

  8. I think Bev Oda should consider a career change and apply to Yuk Yuks. Anyone who can write or say anything like that with a straight face is a born stand up comic!

  9. When the Conservatives start to respect the will of Parliament and Parliamentary supremacy, their supporters like you can lecture the Liberals and the rest of us on that.

    The fact is, that was a Liberal 'motion', and it would have been non-binding even if passed, and i can guarantee the Conservatives would have ignored the motion anyhow.

    • But now they can respect the will of the House, just like you've always wanted. Why deny yourself this success? Celebrate the victory Ignatieff, Rae and Szabo have handed you!

  10. This actually does clear a few things up. For one thing, it demolishes all that rhetoric about "litmus tests" and "defunding hospitals."

    • We may all be parsing what is likely a deliberately empty statement, so here's more…

      From the statement: "The G8 initiative does not change existing CIDA programming." I do not expect that a carefully crafted non-statement would by accident include the phrase "existing CIDA programming". They have deliberate left open the possibility that future programming may be "affected". They are not confirming gov't currently intends to make changes, but, clearly, are leaving that possibility on the table.

      • I disagree. It sounds like a pretty unequivocal statement that CIDA policy isn't changing, period. You're reading too much into the word "existing".

        • Hate to go all wordy on you, but I think you are reading the sentence as if the word "existing" is absent. If that's the correct reading, then inserting "existing" was gratuitous and redundant. These sort of statements are very carefully crafted. The inclusion of unnecessary words seems inconsistent and improbable.

          • Oda's office also said, quite unequivocally: "We are not changing our policy". I would suggest that this means that future changes are not anticipated.

      • What follows would then be (to my mind):
        -Any G8 agreement would have to include a grandfathering clause
        -The government is making changes to programs and directives now, prior to the G8, in order that they can grandfather a highly restrictive funding policy when it comes to family planning and women's health organizations.

        But you're right, if it's an empty statement, we're likely to see something completely contradictive come out in the next month.

        • Any G8 agreement would have to include a grandfathering clause

          How so?

          -The government is making changes to programs and directives now, prior to the G8, in order that they can grandfather a highly restrictive funding policy when it comes to family planning and women's health organizations.

          What changes, exactly?

          • The phrase "no changes to existing" suggests that there may be implications for future policy, but not for…existing…policy. This is textbook grandfathering, no?

            Changes = altering the funding levels of current recipients (or cutting it altogether) to create a precedent of doing so, backing up a more restrictive interpretation of policy. If the interpretation and policy exists before any maternal health agreement, it would be grandfathered, and thus, not have to be changed.

            It's a little conspiracy-theorist (particularly to do so on such an empty turn of phrase) but it's viable.

    • "We are not changing our policy."
      "The G8 initiative does not change existing CIDA programming."

      So what is the point of the G8 initiative if it won't change our existing programming or policies?

      • It will increase funding from all G8 countries for maternal health, the most neglected of the Millennium Development Goals. Canada's contribution would be guided by Canada's existing policy. The policy under the Liberals was pretty crap and didn't say anything explicit about abortion. Mr. Ignatieff is leading the charge on making it worse, for reasons known only to himself.

  11. I'm a little worried about the last part of the exchange. "This application is currently being considered."

    While I'm sure all applications must be considered (I would hope so, at any rate) I would love it if you could follow up on this application, Aaron, say in two weeks time, to see where it ends up.

    • Don't hold your breath Jenn, IPPF submitted its application for funding in June 2009, and haven't heard anything since.
      http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Planned+Paren

      Style, considering the gov't sat on the application for 7 months before maternal health became a politically-charged issue back in January, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say Mr. Ignatieff is the primary reason it's been held up, although perhaps his approach to the maternal health issue caused him to become a scapegoat for the hold up.

      Perhaps the better way to have approached it politically would have been for Mr. Ignatieff to suggest if the government is serious about funding maternal health, it could begin by reviewing IPPF's application on a priority basis rather than sitting on it for 11 months (and counting).

      • Not sure why Mr. Bell (IPPF's spokesman) would be disingenious about Mr. Ignatieff's likely effect on IPPF's proposal:
        Federation spokesman Paul Bell said the federation was "taken by surprise" last week when Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff cited the delayed decision when insisting the Harper government include abortion in its G8 maternal and child health-care plan. "I think while it certainly highlights the issues, I'm not sure whether ultimately it's beneficial," Bell said in a telephone interview from Britain this week.

        Read more:http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Planned+Par

      • Not sure why Mr. Bell (IPPF's spokesman) would be disingenious about Mr. Ignatieff's likely effect on IPPF's proposal:
        Federation spokesman Paul Bell said the federation was "taken by surprise" last week when Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff cited the delayed decision when insisting the Harper government include abortion in its G8 maternal and child health-care plan. "I think while it certainly highlights the issues, I'm not sure whether ultimately it's beneficial," Bell said in a telephone interview from Britain this week.

        Read more:http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Planned+Par

        • Only a Harperite could convert an "I'm not sure if it's going to have a good effect" into "Ignatieff has hurt us!"

          It takes a particularly blinded one to provide the evidence that shows the transformation.

        • Who is saying he is being disingenuous? He is not even critizing Iggy.

          Where in that article does Bell say that Ignatieff's comment has delayed the already seriously delayed review? in that article he is commenting the day after Ignatieff's comment.

          Talk about disingenuous.

          • Usually when someone says "not helpful", they're saying you've worsened the situation. That's a pretty straightforward interpretation of the quote "I'm not sure whether ultimately it's beneficial," Happy to disagree on this though – since we're trying to read Mr. Bell's mind from many weeks ago. Maybe it's changed and he's deliriously happy with how things are turning out.

          • You claimed it was delayed because of Ignatieff and implied that Bell was saying the same thing. When Bell's clearly not excited about the effect this might have on the application, he clearly is not and could not be blaming Ignatieff for the prior delays.

            When they had already been waiting 8 months, it's hard to say Iggy caused the delay.

            And if his making that statement caused Harper in a vindictive pique to slow funding even more, then really who is at fault there? That is the worst form of governing and I know that even you would agree with that.

            The truth is that this government does not want to fund and would not approve funding for Planned Parenthood and has already gutted funding by 99% to its Canadian branch.

          • I was unclear earlier. I meant there was some suggestion it was *further* delayed by Mr. Ignatieff's comments, not that the initial delay was due to him in any way. I don't believe it's "vindictive pique" that slowed the funding decision or led to the new policy. I think it's political reality that Canadians aren't looking for increased abortion funding, but there are some who are strongly advocating for less. Mr. Ignatieff should have realised this dynamic when he made his comment and foreseen that turning up the heat would worsen the status quo. I believe Mr. Bell was aware of it and would have advised Mr. Ignatieff against this approach. In my less charitable moments, I believe Mr. Ignatieff and his advisors did understand this dynamic and anticipate this outcome and didn't care because they thought it would help the Liberal party.

          • I don't see how it worsened the status quo.

            Harper wasn't even going to fund contraception and family planning. Now, because Ignatieff raised the issue, he is.

            In my less charitable moments, I believe Mr. Harper and his advisors hoped no one would notice or care about the details of what they were doing or make any connection between what they are doing with this initiative and what they have been doing to other women's organizations, and didn't care to inform us the public because they thought it would help the Conservative party.

            So we'll call it a draw.

          • "Harper wasn't even going to fund contraception and family planning. Now, because Ignatieff raised the issue, he is. "

            That seems to be the crux of the issue – I think the Conservatives intended to avoid the issue and leave the existing ambiguity in place, allowing Canadian funding to get to contraception, family planning and abortion. Now we seem on track to a more restrictive policy that a future government will need to replace. You probably believe a Liberal PM would replace it quickly and effectively. I look at the Liberal caucus divisions on the issue and seriously doubt that.

          • With respect Syle, I have no idea how you can conclude that Harper was going to allow "Canadian funding to get to contraception, family planning and abortion" when Cannon and Oda got up and set explicity that there would be no funding for family planning. Period.

            The only reason there will may be some fundign for family planning at all is because Iggy shined the light on this charade and forced Harper's hand. The public reacted very negatively to the idea that contraception and family planning would be excluded, and so he flip flopped on the issue. But to assuage the socon base, he clarified no abortion.

            Given the way this unfolded, given the way Planned Parenthood's Canadian branch was de-funded 98% and the international branch has not had its new funding contract approved after almost a year, and given the many women's groups like Match that have seen 75% of its funding cut by Harper, I don't know how you can honestly say you think that Harper was ever going to permit his government to fund contraception, family planning or abortion, but for Iggy.

          • That's just not how I remember events. Cannon made it clear he wanted to rule out this funding, but Oda and Harper consistently said this discussion was a diversion by the Liberals and there was no effort to change Canadian policy. That existing policy, used by the Liberals, does nothing to guarantee funding for abortion or family planning, which wasn't too helpful in the first place. If the Liberals had crafted a clearer policy when they were in government, then Ignatieff's efforts might have been beneficial. Now, we're either where we started – with an ambiguous policy that might see some funding for family planning and abortion. Or we've got a new policy that rules out funding for abortion. The ambiguous policy was crap, but it allowed development experts in the civil service to consider and approve applications from abortion advocates. If the policy shifts, that discretion will disappear. Given the failings of the Liberal's previous policy, and their inability to carry their caucus on their own motion, I'm not confident we'll get out of this easily.

          • Well said.

        • I said it wasn't the primary reason it's been held up. I'd agree with Mr. Bell that Mr. Ignatieff's stance likely didn't help the IPPF, but it'd speak poorly of the government if funding decisions are delayed merely because the opposition comes out in support of them.

          This government approved a massive $3.3 billion auto bailout in far less time than it's been considering this relatively miniscule $18 million proposal to an organization that's been receiving funding since the 1980's. For a yes/no decision to be held up that long does beg the question of why the government is taking so long to review such a small proposal.

          • They shoulda just gone through Rahim.

          • It depends on whether you think funding abortions is popular with Canadians. If you think that Canadians were clamouring for more funding for abortion services (particularly overseas), then Ignatieff made the right move. If you think Canadians are uncomfortable with funding for abortion services (particularly overseas), then Ignatieff took a small, possibly manageable problem for IPPF and used it to damage Canada's aid policy and stir up anti-abortion activists to push for restrictions domestically – especially after the Liberal caucus split on this issue. Maybe this will have a net political benefit for the Liberals. I have yet to see what positive effect its having for Canada or the world.

    • It's already been under consideration for months. There was some suggestion it got slowed down considerably when Ignatieff highlighted it for his own selfish reasons. At the time, the head of the organization was not too pleased with the Liberal leader.

      • Indeed. As I recall, the head of that organization was quite irate that future funding for his organization might be jeopardized by Ignatieff's contrived abortion debate. The Harper government had been quietly continuing to fund the IPFF for years, and future funding was pretty much a given until the Liberals tried to turn it into a wedge issue as part of their "culture war" strategy.

        • Iggy should have STFU'd?

          • Exactly.

            Let's flip it around and ponder what would have happened had Ignatieff not asked Harper about his policy.

            There would be no abortion funding. There would be no contraception funding. There would be no family planning funding. There would be no education on sexual health. Both Oda and Cannon ruled these out unequivocably, but because of the Liberal's bringing to light their plans, public pressure was apply and Harper had to flip flop on the issue.

            And they are very angry at Ignatieff for having done so as you can see.

            A very very important lesson should be learned here about the consequences of just "STFU" as they would want.

            Thank goodness for Ignatieff's contrivances.

          • That's not how I remember events. Cannon seemed to want to rule out funding for contraception and abortion as part of the increased spending Canada would announce this summer. Oda and Harper seemed happy to remain agnostic and allow the funding to be used for the most effective interventions to improve maternal health. Then Rae introduced a motion calling for Canada to increase funding for abortion services. The Liberal caucus split and the House voted the motion down. Harper now had to ignore a motion with bipartisan support if he wanted to allow increased funding for abortion. That is politically very difficult. As difficult as expelling Szabo from the LIberal caucus? Maybe even that difficult.

        • Just to be clear: Because of an opposition ignited debate and a unattached pollster's comments on CBC, this application has been slowed? And they say all the power is concentrated in the PMO!?

      • So, three months ago, when Iggy said he supported increased aid for maternal health, but wanted to be sure it would include the "full range" of options and no "gag orders" concerning abortion/contraception … he was just in it for himself? Are you suggesting that Harper's initiative to help women in the developing world WOULD have included contraception and safe access to abortion had Iggy not sounded the warning and raised the ire of the PM?

        If so, what does that say about the PM? Is he fighting domestic political battles on the international scene … again?

        Iggy was pilloried for bringing up abortion back in February. He was accused of being "out of touch" and that his time in the US had caused him to loose touch with what's important to Canadians. Major papers suggested he didn't understand that abortion was a long-settled matter in Canada. Not a big deal.

        Turns out Iggy was right — Harper is willing to politicize abortion in foreign aid — and the journos were wrong.

        But this is all Iggy's fault, right?

        • "Harper is willing to politicize abortion in foreign aid" by responding to Ignatieff's politicization of abortion in foreign aid? I think maybe we agree on what's happening here. I don't know if Canada's contribution this summer would have funded abortion. I suspect it would have, probably by continuing the ambiguous wording of previous Liberal and Conservative governments. Now it won't. And we may see worse happen. In politics, you push an issue when you can improve on the status quo. Not when the political climate is against you. Either Ignatieff badly misread Canadian attitudes on abortion or he cynically stirred this up in the hopes it would on balance benefit the Liberals. Maybe I am giving him too much credit and he's just been foolish and unhelpful again, rather than cynically manipulative.

        • "Harper is willing to politicize abortion in foreign aid" by responding to Ignatieff's politicization of abortion in foreign aid? I think maybe we agree on what's happening here. I don't know if Canada's contribution this summer would have funded abortion. I suspect it would have, probably by continuing the ambiguous wording of previous Liberal and Conservative governments. Now it won't. And we may see worse happen. In politics, you push an issue when you can improve on the status quo. Not when the political climate is against you. Either Ignatieff badly misread Canadian attitudes on abortion or he cynically stirred this up in the hopes it would on balance benefit the Liberals. Maybe I am giving him too much credit and he's just been foolish and unhelpful again, rather than cynically manipulative.

          • Or, you might consider the possibility that Iggy was right all along about the Harper team's duplicity on this file. Just look at the careening statements that have flowed out of Bev Oda's office since February. It's pretty clear that something was afoot … and if Iggy's call for clarity smoked them out … well, at least he's done his job as Opposition leader on THIS file.

            What's weird is how our national media got it so wrong.

    • Let's remember that the government is playing to at least two, possibly three, very different audiences with these sorts of non-statements. First, for the the pro-choice faction, they do not want to do any more damage and so remain vaguely supportive. Second, to the pro-life, social con base, always drop hints that they are keeping the faith. Finally to the great mass of voters who pay little attention: say and do nothing that catches their attention.

    • As noted above, Oda is being extremely disingenuous when she states merely that "IPPF (Planned Parenthood) has submitted an application for funding. This application is currently being considered."

      Harper has cut 98% of all government funding to IPPF already. The only thing that is being "considered" is whether to cut 99% or 99.9% (but not 100% to avoid claims that "all" funding had been cut and to be able to mislead by saying that "some" funding was still being provided).

      They are one of the 20+ women's groups (including women training, eduction and shelter groups) whose funding has been cut by Harper.

      • Ted, what evidence do you have to support the very specific assertions made in your second paragraph?

        • Agreed! Source please.

        • Again with the challenges to my truthfulness, eh. Bad habits die hard I suppose.

          Google is your friend, CR. And if you think such drastic cuts are wrong, then Harper is not.

          Here is a Christian magazine bragging about the gutting of Planned Parenthood. They actually say 99% has been cut already, but I thought it was a mere 98%. I could be wrong about that.

          But you sound alarmed at such an accusation. Presumably, if true, you would be equally alarmed that Harper is in fact going around gutting organizations like Planned Parenthood by 99% and Match by 75%?

          • We're all grown-ups here, Ted. I'm not challenging your truthfulness, I'm simply asking you to back up what you say.

            In this case, you made a claim about funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, but you supported it with a link to a Christian magazine that talks about funding to The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, a domestic organization.

            They're not actually the same thing, even though the CFSH used to be called "Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada" until 2006. Apples and oranges, my friend.

            That's exactly why you should always provide evidence to back up your claims, so that others can check for themselves to see if your claims are reliable.

          • The onus is on the provider of facts to back them up with a source.

            My politics aren't the same as CRs but he's right; when you put a stat or fact on the table that is not well known you need to provide a source and not use the "google it" argument.

          • There's a history.

            CR inevitably resorts to calling me a liar or my facts untrue if the discussion goes on for a while.

            I'm not always right on my facts, but I usually am and I usually have a source. And so when something was so in the news, bring up the google it argument in this context I think was fair.

          • CR inevitably resorts to calling me a liar or my facts untrue if the discussion goes on for a while.

            I've never called you a "liar", Ted. I treat people respectfully and I expect them to extend me the same courtesy. Please stop whining about me.

    • Don't hold your breath Jenn, IPPF submitted its application for funding in June 2009, and haven't heard anything since.
      http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Planned+Paren

      Style, considering the gov't sat on the application for 7 months before maternal health became a politically-charged issue back in January, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say Mr. Ignatieff is the primary reason it's been held up, although perhaps his approach to the maternal health issue caused him to become a scapegoat for the hold up.

      Perhaps the better way to have approached it politically would have been for Mr. Ignatieff to suggest if the government is serious about funding maternal health, it could begin by reviewing IPPF's application on a priority basis rather than sitting on it for 11 months (and counting).

  12. They are either lying to people who want a full range of maternal health care…..OR they are lying to their base who expect them to take away abortion…….what is starting to bug me is reporters NOT asking pointed questions…4 years of these types of non-answers…..cripes.

    • too be fare the history of these types of answers extends beyond the harper years, though perhaps there is room about whose government has been the most abusive in their use (and i don't know the answer). but… they really need to stop. not sure it is just the media's fault. wherry could send a hundred variations and we could get that response a hundred times i suspect. but something needs to change. how do we fix this people. is more journalism that included the specific questions and replies verbatim and led with lines about "refusing to answer the specific questions raised". while it would piss off the politicians, i don't reckon i care. and if the counter is that it would reduce access, well, i am not sure i see that is a significant cost given what current level of access seems to deliver.

  13. PS: One of the weaker criticisms of politicians of any stripe is that they are "politicizing" an issue. That's like griping because ice is cold.

    • Yeas, I thought you were being a bit silly there.