Friday, February 8, 2019

CPCs a target for calumny -- they won't refer for abortion

It is sad that there are "pro-choice" extremists in Canada who constantly feel the need to attack crisis pregnancy centres. This destructive obsession is because CPCs refuse to refer for abortion, or speak the language of "reproductive justice".

It's not as if CPCs were the wicked places these people make them out to be. Far from it as I've written many times before.

It's almost like a religion for these fanatics. Except one usually thinks of religion as a belief in something loving, transcendent, and divine. Not the case with these CPC haters.

The latest attack comes in the form of a new "study" authored by Haiqi Li called Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Canada and Reproductive Justice Organizations’ Responses. It is published by the Global Journal of Health Science.

I see no point in rebutting all of this report's inaccuracies. They are pretty much the standard fare we have seen many times before from Joyce Arthur. In fact Li uses Arthur's work as a launch pad for her own study. Li also hasn't bothered to read the two rebuttals here and here on Arthur's previous reports about CPCs, instead drawing conclusions based on Arthur's own deceptions and misinformation campaigns against CPCs.

Li uses another tactic of Arthur's. She draws on the alleged American experience of CPCs as somehow pertinent to Canadian CPCs. Two different countries. Two different experiences.
"It can be inferred from the article by LaRoche and Foster, the report by ARCC,
and the broader discussion about CPCs in general, that CPCs in Canada and the services and information they offer indeed infringe on the fully-informed decisions entitled to Canadian pregnant women."
The article by LaRoche and Foster is based on US CPCs and not Canadian CPCs. As well, Arthur's "studies" have been challenged for their heavy use of misinformation, deception and untruth. How can you infer something based on two faulty premises?

One more example, and I'll leave it to the reader to read the paper and come to their own conclusions.

In Arthur's original 2016 report, she states:
"48% [of CPCs] mentioned negative psychological consequences, primarily in the context of “Postabortion Syndrome”, which is not medically recognized...Almost half of the websites, 48%, claimed that women who have abortions are more at risk for negative psychological effects such as depression, “Post-Abortion Syndrome,” or suicidal thoughts. 20% of sites specifically mentioned “Post-Abortion Syndrome,” while 16% did not specifically name “Post-Abortion Syndrome” but listed what many anti-abortion groups believe are its symptoms."
Li repeats Arthur:
"This report [Arthur's 2016 report] analyzes the websites of 166 Canadian CPCs by examining whether they provide specific misinformation. It discovers that 48% of the websites include assertions of abortions’ damaging psychological effects that are medically unrecognized."
There are two problems here. First, none of the CPCs used Arthur's term Post-Abortion Syndrome. Second, some did discuss possible emotional issues after an abortion. This in fact is "medically recognized" contrary to what both Arthur and Li conclude. Read what the BC Women’s Hospital (and others) say “Coping with Ending a Pregnancy:
"It is normal to grieve the loss of any pregnancy. You may have mixed feelings including: sadness, anger, relief, guilt or shame. Here are some resources to help you through these difficult feelings."
Not only was Arthur's original conclusion wrong (that post-abortion psychological consequences are medically not recognized), Li now repeats the untruth. (See Pages 9 to 12 of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres for the full rebuttal on this one detail.)

Crisis pregnancy centres do not misinform women. They do not deceive women. They do not "infringe on the fully-informed decisions entitled to Canadian pregnant women." Repeating a lie over and over again does not make the lie true.

Monday, February 4, 2019

The right to life and the right to free speech

From the Christian Heritage Party of Canada:

Dear Members and Supporters of CHP Canada / CHP Hamilton Mountain

Next to the Right to Life what can be more important in a nation than the Right to Freedom of Speech?  Without this right we cannot publicly scrutinize public policies or those who may have an agenda to bring harm to Canadian citizens. Yet increasingly we are witnessing attempts by government at various levels to shut down free speech.  This is a very dangerous trend.

CHP Hamilton Mountain has approval for 3 bus shelter ads to be placed on the Hamilton Mountain for the month of May (see sample image).  In addition to the bus shelter ads we also plan to produce flyers (see attached) and distribute them to homes in the area of the bus shelters and beyond.

The estimated cost of this ‘Free Speech Matters’ campaign is $1850 which includes 1500 flyers but we need people to partner with us. Currently we are appealing for funding partners.

Remember that donations to CHP Hamilton Mountain are considered political donations and as such up to 75% of your donation (provided you pay taxes) is refundable on next year’s tax return. So a $100 donation can cost you as little as $25 or a $50 donation could cost you only $12.50.

Please, at this time consider partnering with us financially by sending a cheque made out to ‘CHP Hamilton Mountain’ and on the memo line add ‘Free Speech Matters’.

Please mail your cheque to:

CHP Hamilton Mountain 
P.O. Box 30028
1599 Upper James Street
Hamilton Ontario
L9B 0E4

We need to sign the contracts for the Bus Shelter Ads by mid-February and so we ask you to please consider responding very soon.

Thank you so much

Jim Enos 
CHP Canada, Hamilton Mountain
The Christian Heritage Party of Canada

Inline image

Saturday, January 26, 2019

Fr. Tony Van Hee's court dates

Fr. Tony Van Hee's case has been split into two parts and will be heard separately.

1) The civil challenge to the law, on the constitutionality of the abortion bubble zone law, will be heard in Superior Court. Date unknown at this point.

2) The criminal case will be heard July 6-7, 2020 in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Prayers would be good for Fr. Tony and his case. In fact the Rosary would be an especially good prayer to say.

If you want to hear some amazing stories on the power of the Rosary as a weapon against evil listen to Dr. Taylor Marshall and Fr. Donald Calloway. And you don't have to be a Catholic to say the Rosary either. Don't know it? No problem, just read here.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Free speech is a crime if you are pro-life

I've posted all information on Fr. Tony's case is here.

Fr. De Souza has the best analysis yet of Fr. Tony Van Hee's case:
"The Crown appears to consider it an offence to protest restrictions on free speech if, in the past, you protested against abortion. The crime is exercising free speech while pro-life."
I think we finally know now why pro-life people aren't allowed to practice their Charter right to free speech. It's actually because they are pro-life. If you were pro-choice and carried that exact same sign inside the bubble zone, you wouldn't be charged with anything.

So now we know.

Dear Doug Ford and Caroline Mulroney. Can you please explain why?

Here are their email addresses if you'd also like to ask the Premier and the Attorney General this question.

Sunday, January 6, 2019

Freedom of information is neither free, timely, or accurate

As I've written before, I am appealing the information I received on the abortion bubble zone:
"I am now appealing to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario because of all the information that I didn't receive.
In fact, what I did receive was pretty sloppy stuff. No index was included in my package. When an index finally arrived (after I told the information commissioner I hadn't received it when she asked), it referenced document numbers, but my information only had page numbers and no document numbers. So clearly it was impossible to match the index with the stack of papers I received.
One of my other complaints was the glaring omission of any police reports to support the need for a bubble zone in the first place. You know, like actual evidence for the need for a bubble zone? When I asked the information commissioner about this, I was told:
"with respect to the police reports, I had followed up earlier with the ministry [attorney general] and they advised there were no police reports.""
Lastly, I am appealing the cost to get this "free"dom of information (not free at all at $552.50)
that was very sloppy work.

And I have now received (in December) a new package that contains a pile of pages with document numbers to match the pile of pages. Finally.

And it only took 14 months. Such great service. So cheap. These bureaucrats are amazing.

How does one not get sarcastic when they are dealing with such incompetence?

So now I will peruse what I received, and continue with my appeal with the Privacy Commissioner. For as long as it takes me.