Friday, May 26, 2017

How peaceful prolife people are treated

By Patricia Maloney

Since I couldn't get my councillor Tobi Nussbaum or mayor Jim Watson to answer my questions about why the March of life was rerouted, I asked Chief Bordeleau.

He replied:
"What I can tell you with respect to the demonstration is that the Ottawa Police Service is present during demonstrations to ensure the safety and security of all participants and observers.
Although routes are pre-approved, officers on the ground may be required to make decisions to deviate from a planned route for a number of reasons including for reasons associated with public safety.
Demonstrations are dynamic in nature and officers must make decisions on site which were required that day."
My subsequent reply:

Dear Chief Bordeleau,

First I would like to thank you for responding to my letter. As I have mentioned already, my councillor Tobi Nussbaum and mayor Jim Watson have not responded to my question.

Second I am confused by your response. The counter protesters were originally stationed at the corner of Elgin and Slater on the East side of Elgin.



Then they began to cross to the west side of Elgin, stopping in the middle of the street, and then they stood in the middle of the street, all the while the police enabling this action, and not insisting that they stay put, and out of the path we were approved to take.


So...we were then diverted because the police were allowing the counter protesters to force us to change routes. Why instead were the counter protesters not kept back to their original spot? Why were the police's actions being dictated by a handful of masked angry protesters? At the expense of our 14,000 peaceful protesters? It is important to us to march past the Human Rights monument because we support human rights for all Canadians including unborn children, and this is why we take this route.

Why were we diverted because these others were allowed to prevent our charter right to peacefully protest and express our pro-life views? Why didn't the police divert them instead? 

With all due respect Chief Bordeleau, I will answer that question for you since I have no allusions that you will provide me with an answer that makes sense.

It is because there is a double standard in Ottawa. It is because there is a double standard in Canada. There are millions of pro-life people, and there is everyone else. Because we stand up and defend pre-born Canadians who are unable to defend or protect themselves--we are marginalized; we are shunned; we are spat on; we have profanities yelled at us; we get the finger as if we are some kind of disgusting human being. And we get angry masked protesters too cowardly to show their faces, threaten us. That's what it's like to be pro-life. And the police protect these other people instead of protecting the peaceful pro-life people.

Here's a thought  experiment for you. Imagine the gay pride parade going down Elgin St. Then imagine a group of 50 people counter protesting the gay pride parade. Would your police officers divert the gay pride parade because of these counter protesters? I guarantee you that they would not. If they did, there would be outrage in the land.

And now our mayor is asking for a bubble zone around the abortion clinic. Why? Because allegedly there were a few individuals who behaved improperly. If they did, why weren't they dealt with by the police when they did it? No the solution to the possibility of a few individuals behaving inappropriately, is for our Mayor to send a Tomahawk missile to curtail our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. That's how we are treated. 

And make no mistake. 99.9 % of pro-life people do not condone or would never engage in any kind of aggressive, abusive behaviour; they wouldn't dream of behaving this way. If some people did behave this way then deal with it with your police officers.

Once again Chief Bordeleau, I would like to thank you for having the courtesy and respect for a citizen of Ottawa--albeit a pro-life person quite used to not receiving replies--to reply to my email.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Friday, May 19, 2017

Ottawa Citizen agrees to change policy regarding pro-life letters

I think it's time we insist that newspapers use the word "pro-life" to describe us. Newspapers usually call us "anti-abortion". I took issue with this policy last week when I wrote a letter to the Ottawa Citizen after they changed a letter I wrote where I used "pro-life" to "anti-abortion"

I then contacted the Citizen and explained that I had a big problem with this change.

Then ensued a correspondence between myself and Christina Spencer, the editorial pages editor. She said they would review their policy of using the word "anti-abortion" instead of pro-life" after I explained how unfair this policy was to us, since we call ourselves "pro-life". And that, just like how editors call themselves editors and not "word-changers", we like to be called "pro-life" and not "anti-abortion".

In putting forth our position on calling ourselves "pro-life" I then explained:
"Cardinal Collins never used the word abortion in his homily. He used the words "Sanctity of Life", Gift of Life", "Cause of Life", "March for Life", etc. He also spoke about euthanasia and assisted suicide: our view is much broader than anti-abortion, it is about the sanctity of ALL life: 
"anti-abortion" is not what I wrote and definitely not what I meant. If it is the Citizens policy to use that word instead of the word we use ourselves--and the word I always use--the Citizen is manipulating my/our message. 
For someone to read my letter as it stands, who knows little or nothing about life issues, will believe that I/we call ourselves "anti-abortion" when this is simply untrue, misleading to readers, and unfair to us. 
Surely it is not the Citizen's goal to mislead/misrepresent their readers/letter writers? 
...another argument is this: It is one thing for the OC to use the word "anti-abortion" in articles written by staff members (and I don't agree with this either), but it is another thing entirely to change a letter that I have written to use the word "anti-abortion", when clearly the letter should be in my voice, not in the voice of the OC. And the same goes for Cardinal Collins: I was writing about what he said, it wasn't OC staff writing about what he said."
The Citizen has now agreed that:
"letter-writers should be given their own voices as much as possible, regardless of our other style protocols around the issue. As a result, I’ve gone in to our web file and updated your letter to use the term “pro life” where you used it."
I think this is very good news for us at the Ottawa Citizen. Now we need to educate other newspapers in Canada where this policy is practiced.

My letter with the word "pro-life" put back in.

Really boring videos - prelude to Ontario election

Do you want to be bored silly? If yes then watch this video. Kathleen Wynne and company recently discovered youtube. Now she is posting really boring videos on youtube.



Somehow I ended up on a mailing list to tell me that Kathleen is live broadcasting these really boring videos.

Today's installment is about light rail in London.

The first 23 minutes of the video consists of a sign, a microphone and some trees. Blowing in the wind. 23 minutes of this. Like I said. Really boring. I am not kidding.


I wonder if there were any actual people at the announcement other than politicians?

Of course we aren't idiots in Ontario. We all know the point of these really bring videos: the Ontario election is next year. Oh, and the best part? You paid for this really boring video. Along with all those Liberal commercials the Ontario government is airing on the radio. Also paid for by your tax dollars.

Liberal strategy: Announce spending of tax dollars. Tell taxpayer how great we are. Force taxpayer to pay for us to tell them how great we are. Really boring. But effective. Brilliant really.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Jim Watson - Why did you divert our March for Life?

Jim Watson's response to my letter about his decision to take down the pro-life flag.

If you wrote, you probably received the same form letter response.

And notice how he doesn't answer my question about why the March for Life was diverted from its approved route.

I've now asked him this question three times.

Dear Ms. Maloney,
Thank you for your email with respect to the March for Life flag raising. 
The process for issuing proclamations and approving flag raisings is overseen by the Office of Protocol to ensure that the City’s policies are interpreted without a political lens and in keeping with the Ontario Human Rights Code.  As the request from the March for Life group met the test of both policies, the proclamation was issued, as it has been for many years.  This is the first year the request has been made for a flag raising.  It was granted on the same basis as the proclamation. 
While the City’s Flag Protocol Procedures mirror the City’s Proclamation Policy in many ways, a review of this matter by the City Clerk has determined that the request for the flag raising was made by an individual.  This does not meet the criteria and, when this was discovered, the flag was taken down under the authority of the City Clerk. 
With respect to proclamations, all proclamations issued by the City of Ottawa are in accordance with a Policy adopted in 2002.  The provisions in this policy reflect the law in Ontario with respect to proclamations, which ensures that the City’s practices are in line with Ontario’s Human Rights Code.  The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that, because proclamations issued by Mayors in Ontario are a service subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Code, the refusal of a Mayor to issue a proclamation may constitute a contravention of the Human Rights Code if the decision of the Mayor was based on any reason that is protected in the Code or by case law related to the Code. 
Therefore, based on the requirements of human rights law, most municipalities in Ontario have chosen to either eliminate the use of proclamations altogether or issue them using broad criteria.  For this reason, the City of Ottawa’s Policy specifically indicates a Proclamation “should not be interpreted as an endorsement by either the Mayor or the City of Ottawa.’’ 
I have requested that the City Clerk review the Flag Protocol Procedures and the City’s Proclamation Policy, and report back. 
Thank you for your feedback, 
Jim Watson 
Mayor
City of Ottawa

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

March for Life 2017 - a letter to Jim Watson

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have written to our mayor about his decision to remove the pro-life flag from City Hall. Here is one such letter that was sent to me.

To: Jim Watson, Mayor, City of Ottawa

cc: Michael Qaqish, Councillor Ward 22 - Gloucester - South Nepean

Dear Mr. Watson (copy to my City Councillor, Mr. Qaqish),

I was so proud of you and the City of Ottawa last week when I heard that the Pro-Life flag would be flying at Ottawa City Hall on the day of the National March for Life.

At the pro-life rally on Parliament Hill, again, I was so proud of you and the City when your proclamation in honour of Respect for Life Day was read out loud to the cheering crowd of Canadians who came from across our great country to stand up for all those in our society who are too vulnerable to stand up for themselves.

That pride and joy I experienced turned into confusion and disbelief when the police blocked us from continuing down our pre-approved route past the Human Rights Monument. The police chose instead to give in to the demands of a few protesters (probably less than 100 from what I could tell) and refused to let us proceed towards the Human Rights Monument. This happened last year, and so I thought for sure the police would be prepared to not let this happen again this year. (And I know that the police were warned that protesters would be there.)

Then later, when I read the letter of complaint signed by seven city Councillors (Catherine McKenney, Diane Deans, Marianne Wilkinson, Tobi Nussbaum, Jeff Leiper, Jan Harder, and Mathieu Fleury) and learned that you had actually apologized for allowing the pro-life flag to be raised and ordered it taken down, I felt like I had been punched in the gut. 

Mr. Watson, why do you (and the signatories to that offensive letter) hate us so much?

Why won't you defend the rights of those who support laws that would protect vulnerable human beings such as preborn children? (Even if you don't personally agree with that viewpoint, it is a valid one to have in a free and democratic society.) Why do you allow a handful of protesters to take away our freedom to peacefully walk along a pre-approved route in solidarity with the women who have been harmed by abortion? Why do you fly the flag for those who are proud of their LGBTQ lifestyle, but treat with contempt those who are proud of their belief in the sanctity of human life? Why the double standard?

Mr. Watson, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Codes apply to all Canadians. Why are you treating us like second-class citizens?

I do not know if you failed last Thursday to uphold our freedoms because you personally agree with the pro-abortion/anarchist protesters who intimidated the police into diverting our March. And maybe you personally agree with the seven Councillors who signed the discriminatory letter that contained the lie that access to abortion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, demanding the pro-life flag be taken down. (In fact, all seven Supreme Court justices in the 1988 Morgentaler decision agreed that the state has an interest in protecting the fetus; they all agreed Parliament could come up with a new abortion law to balance the interests of both women and unborn children). 

Or maybe you acted as you did because you did not have the courage to defend our democratic freedoms in the face of controversy. If that is the case, then, with respect, Mr. Watson, that is not leadership. 

But if the former--if you acted as you did because you agree with the pro-abortion/pro-euthanasia status quo in our country, that is, that there should be no legal protection at all for children in the womb; that abortion must remain fully funded by the taxpayer; that physicians should be coerced into collaborating with abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide against their deeply held religious and/or conscientious convictions; that a violent criminal who assaults a pregnant woman and intentionally kills the baby she did NOT choose to abort should face no consequences for killing her beloved child--if you acted as you did because you personally hold such views, then you have allowed your own personal views to cloud your judgment and take priority over your responsibility to uphold the democratic freedoms of a whole segment of Canadian society (the thousands who attended the March, and the millions across the country whom we represent).

Regardless of your motives, Mr. Watson, I'm now asking that you apologize to all who took part in the March last Thursday, and to all Canadians across the country who share our pro-life values, for the discriminatory actions taken by the City of Ottawa: the removal of the pro-life flag, your misplaced apology for allowing the flag to be raised in the first place, and the refusal by police to allow us to proceed along our pre-approved route past the Human Rights Monument.

I am especially disheartened that this discriminatory behaviour by the City of Ottawa would happen when we are celebrating our great country's 150th Anniversary. I thought we would have reached the point where our governments would treat everyone in Canada (including in Ottawa) equally and respectfully. There's nothing to celebrate about the way the City treated pro-life Canadians last week.

An apology from you, Mr. Watson, and a promise not to allow this to happen again is in the interests of the common good. It will send a clear message that our Nation's Capital is a city that respects freedom and justice, not just for some, but for all. Everyone benefits in that kind of a society.

And it will show true leadership on your part, Mr. Watson.

Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, 
BM

Monday, May 15, 2017

City of Ottawa council - that's what's "outrageous"

I am still waiting for a response from my counsellor Tobi Nussbaum and from Mayor Jm Watson.

Read from the bottom.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 12, 2017 at 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pro-life flag
To: "Nussbaum, Tobi" <Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca>
Cc: "Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire)" <Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca>, Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>


Dear Tobi,

You say it is about personal conviction. This is NOT merely the conviction of one person. This is the conviction of millions of Canadians so it is not a personal conviction at all, but an entire group of people who are pro-life but who are discriminated against continually, and our rights are not protected.

Second, there is no constitutional right to abortion, and the Canada Health act does not demand abortion be covered. Please see http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/

Third, you have not responded to why we were forced to deviate from our approved route and protected by our police force because of a handful threatening masked counter protesters.

Fourth. Tell me. Who speaks for the personal conviction of the unborn? They can't. So we do it for them. And we are silenced.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney



On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Nussbaum, Tobi <Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca> wrote:
Dear Patricia,

Thank you for writing to me about this important issue. I understand that people have different opinions on what happened yesterday, and it’s good to hear from all sides of the issue. I wanted to make my viewpoint clear to you.

The flag raised at city hall yesterday represented a position that includes a conviction that women should not have the right to access legal and safe abortion services in our country. It was the first time this had ever happened on public grounds at City Hall – and it should not have been allowed to happen.

The City of Ottawa’s policy on proclamation which led to the flag-raising yesterday is clear: “a proclamation will not be issued for matters that politically or religiously motivated or represent individual conviction”. The flag and proclamation that led to it clearly represented an individual conviction, and therefore had no place on public grounds.

I was proud to join my colleagues yesterday in demanding that the flag be taken down (see attached). Shortly after we released that statement, the flag was removed. 

I want to be clear that I also strongly support the right to protest and demonstrate on any political or personal issue within the bounds of what is legally permitted - as we saw in Ottawa yesterday with the annual pro-life rally. 

I hope that helps clarify my position.

Signed,

Tobi Nussbaum



Tobi Nussbaum
Councillor/Conseiller, Rideau-Rockcliffe
City of Ottawa | Ville D’Ottawa
Tel/Tél: 613-580-2483

20150115_NUSSBAUM_email-signature_Tobi-v3-150-ppi
  

From: Patricia Maloney [mailto:maloneyp64@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 12:00 PM
To: Deans, Diane; Wilkinson, Marianne; Nussbaum, Tobi; Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire); Leiper, Jeff; jan.harder@ottawa.ca; Fleury, Mathieu
Subject: Pro-life flag

Dear Jim Watson,

I was very disappointed regarding your decision yesterday to lower the pro-life flag over city hall yesterday.

As pro-life people supporting the rights of preborn human beings, we are continually marginalized and discriminated against. This was just one more example of this kind of sanctioned behaviour.

The flag was a small symbol of what we stand for, and you bent to pressure to remove it, after allowing it to be raised. It's bad enough that Mr. Trudeau has banned pro-life people from his party; now you feel you must "apologize" for allowing us to fly our flag.

Your efforts would have been far better used in controlling the aggressive masked counter protesters, who blocked our way during our city approved March for Life. In fact can you please explain to me why these counter protesterswere allowed to block us and not reigned in?

I am so disappointed in this council for these actions, especially you and my own city councillor Tobi Nussbaum.

And please do not tell me that women have a constitutional right to abortion. This is an untruth that has been spread so often that some people still believe it is true.

We speak for preborn children who have no voice and have no protection as long as they are in the womb. These children are not a part of a woman's body and for those who say otherwise are wrong.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Clinic/physician office and hospital abortions performed in Ontario for 2014/2015

Well I finally received the abortion statistics I had asked for from Health Minister Eric Hoskins. Here they are:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6QWs1NzAwY1NGWTg/view?usp=sharing

The chart includes (direct) costs. These amounts are what the doctor bills OHIP for, but there are other costs associated with abortions.

The numbers are broken down by Hospital (18,491 abortions) and Clinic/Physician Office (27,082 abortions).

Notes from the table:

1) The figures provided are limited to the fee codes for abortions in Ontario for fiscal year 2014-2015 based on the following codes:

a. A920A - MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF EARLY PREGNANCY - INITIAL VISIT
b. P001A - MEDICAL MGMT FETAL DEMISE BETWEEN 14-20 WKS GESTATION
c. S752A - FEM.GENITAL SYST.-INDUCED-CURRETINTRA-AMNIOTIC INJ.(COMP.)
d. S785A - FEM.GENITAL SYST.-INDUCED-INTRA-AMNIOTIC INJ. (INCOMP.)
e. P054A - FETAL MANAGEMENT-SGL/MULT-INTRACARDIAC KCL INJECTION
f. S770A - CORPUS UTERI-HYSTEROTOMY.
g. S783A - CORPUS UTERI-HYSTEROTOMY WITH TUBAL INTERRUPTION.

Note: S770A and S783A may be claimed for purposes other than Therapeutic Abortion

2) 2014 Abortion Number of Services based on the list of codes above = 45,573

(Note that I originally reported 45,471 abortion which is the number the Ministry gave me in court. I assumed the difference (102) must be because of codes S770A and S783A as noted above, but when you look at the chart, there were only a total of 24 procedures done under these two codes, so that's not it. I will try and get an answer from the Ministry of Health--no easy task.)

3) 2014 Abortion Fee Billed based on the list of codes above = $5,690,931.99
4) Service Location - Hospital Services: report the services that based on the claims submission were rendered in a hospital setting.

5) Service Location - Physician Office (PHY): report the that based on the claim submissions were rendered in non-hospital settings (Clinics/Physician offices) 

Sources:
a) Claims History Database: billing data Data for Fiscal Years 2014/15 is M7 data (complete data.) 
b) Schedule of Benefits Physician Services under the Health Insurance Act, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Ottawa Citizen: we call ourselves "pro-life"

Dear Editors and publisher of the Ottawa Citizen,

Today you published my letter in your paper. Thank you.


However a very serious error was made in the publishing of my letter. I used the word "pro-life" twice in my letter. And twice that word was changed to "anti-abortion".

Pro-life people call themselves pro-life for a reason. We do this because we are pro-unborn-babies-life, pro-toddlers-life, pro-teenage-life, pro-elderly life, and pro-sick-and-dying-life.

We do not call ourselves anti-abortion. We call ourselves pro-life.

Not only did the letter (with my name on it) put words in my mouth that I did not and would not say (anti-abortion flag), but it also appears that I am misrepresenting what Cardinal Collins said. He did not say that we should use our talents for the anti-abortion cause, he said said we should use our talents for the pro-life cause. So it sounds like I am misrepresenting what Cardinal Collins said.

I believe it is a sign of respect to call people what they call themselves. For instance, you call yourselves editor. It would be rude of me to call you "word changer" or other such label, because you do not call yourselves "word changer". It would also be disrespectful of me to call you that. 

So as a sign of social etiquette and respect, people should call other people by their preferred labels that identify the work that they do.

I am a pro-life writer/advocate.

Will you please replace the two "anti-abortion" words in the online version of my letter, and instead use the "pro-life" word?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Friday, May 12, 2017

March for Life - Using our talents to promote the Life

Cardinal Collins pro-life homily. So beautiful and encouraging.

Pro-life - We will not be cowed into submission

to: Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca,
cc: Catherine.McKenna@parl.gc.ca,
diane.deans@ottawa.ca,
Marianne.wilkinson@ottawa.ca,
Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca
Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca,
jeff.leiper@ottawa.ca,
Jan.harder@ottawa.ca,
Mathieu.Fleury@ottawa.ca

Dear Jim Watson,

I was very disappointed regarding your decision yesterday to lower the pro-life flag over city hall yesterday.

As pro-life people supporting the rights of preborn human beings, we are continually marginalized and discriminated against. This was just one more example of this kind of sanctioned behaviour.

The flag was a small symbol of what we stand for, and you bent to pressure to remove it, after allowing it to be raised. It's bad enough that Mr. Trudeau has banned pro-life people from his party; now you feel you must "apologize" for allowing us to fly our flag.

Your efforts would have been far better used in controlling the aggressive masked counter protesters, who blocked our way during our city approved March for Life. In fact can you please explain to me why these counter protesters were allowed to block us and not reigned in?

I am so disappointed in this council for these actions, especially you and my own city councillor Tobi Nussbaum.

And please do not tell me that women have a constitutional right to abortion. This is an untruth that has been spread so often that some people still believe it is true.

We speak for preborn children who have no voice and have no protection as long as they are in the womb. These children are not a part of a woman's body and for those who say otherwise are wrong.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

March for Life 2017 - we will never give up

I was very discouraged after returning yesterday from the March for Life.

Every year we do this march, but last year, and now this year, our city approved route was to go down Elgin St. past the Human Rights monument. We believe in human rights for preborn children.

But we were diverted at Albert St. because of other protesters. I took one of their brochures. Oh. And one of them told me she didn't want me video taping her. I ignored her.


The police told us we were diverted to prevent a confrontation with these other protesters. The thing is, the thousands of us are peaceful. So there certainly wouldn't have been a confrontation from us, but rather from these 50 or so threatening, screaming, masked protesters who didn't have the courage to show their faces.

Why did we have to be diverted because these others were allowed to prevent our charter right to peacefully protest? Why didn't the police divert them instead? Because the police knew they wouldn't get lip from us. But they would from these others.

And these people were threatening: they originally stood on the corner of Elgin and Slater; then they began to cross and then stood in the middle of the street (with police allowing this); then we were diverted; then when this wasn't enough for these aggressive people, they headed north on Elgin towards where we were being diverted. Reinforcement police came running past us towards these masked people to prevent them from encountering us.

And what were our city councillors doing all this time? They were complaining that a pro-life flag was being flown at city hall.

Our councillors were "outraged" at this. I am not making this up. They were outraged. They didn't like our "individual conviction" to stand up and speak out for preborn children who cannot speak for themselves; who are defenceless; who are killed every year in the thousands by abortion--and who don't have any city councillors brave enough to speak up or out for them. (Catherine McKenney, Diane Deans, Marianne Wilkonson, Tobi Nussbaun, Jeff Lieper, Mathieu Fleury, Jan Harder, followed by Jim Watson who then cowed to them and removed our flag)

But this morning I woke up and I felt much better. I remembered what Cardinal Collins said yesterday at the pro-life Mass at St. Pat's Basilica. We are to use our talents in the pro-life cause. We are not to be discouraged.

We will continue to speak up and to march in defence of preborn children and their mothers. With a flag or without a flag.

I videotaped the whole march. Thanks to Maureen for downloading it.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 6)

Part 8 – Arthur’s “high and low” reports

So let’s talk now about the so-called “studies or investigative reports” Arthur found in Canada (Source: Page 6 of Arthur’s 2016 report):

The Pretenders (CTV 2000; W-Five).
Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC (Arthur 2009).
Deception Used in Counselling Women against Abortion (Smith 2010a; Toronto Star).
Are Anti-Choice Crisis Pregnancy Centres Targeting Female Students on Ontario
University Campuses?
(Tilley 2011).
Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice: investigation (Woodward 2012; CTV).
Phony Abortion Clinics In Canada Are Scaring Women with Lies (Khandaker 2013a;
VICE).
Enjeux éthiques de l’intervention auprès de femmes vivant une grossesse imprévue au
Québec
(Gonin et al. 2014).
Mieux comprendre les ressources conseil grossesse anti-choix au Québec (FQPN 2014).
Toll free but not judgment free: evaluating postabortion support services in Ontario
(Laroche and Foster 2015).

Now there are a couple of interesting things to note about these “studies”.

First, of these nine studies, six of them are not referenced at all in Arthur’s current study (all the ones in bold above). So why are these even included in this 2016 study?

Clue: look at the titles of the studies. All are inflammatory and one-sided in their negativity of CPCs. Their main purpose for being identified at all is simply to make sure the reader is well aware of other anti-CPC reports out there. They add no additional information to Arthur’s current study, and as mentioned before, all of them used limited sources or were retracted, or found fraudulent (e.g. Arthur’s Exposing CPCs in BC) or penned by pro-choice writers with a partial axe to grind.

Of the two Quebec studies Arthur mentions, one of them relies heavily on Arthur’s own 2009 discredited report.

Lastly, Arthur identifies her own 2009 report, but never references the report that rebuts that deceptive and discredited report. I suggest that Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia: A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report doesn’t have the same cachet as Arthur’s other nine examples. Especially if you place its title right beside the title of her own Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC like this:
“Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC”
“Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia: A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report”

I thought it was very gracious of CAPSS in their choice of the word “disrespectful” to describe Arthur’s 2009 report. In fact, it was very Christian of them.

The Pretenders (CTV 2000; W-Five). This isn’t online so I couldn’t review it. I’ve asked CTV twice now to provide me with a link to the show. They never responded. 

Upon further investigation, I learned something very interesting about this show. A CPC involved in this CTV story sued the CTV’s W-Five for serious inaccuracies in the show. I also learned that an out-of-court settlement was agreed upon by both parties. 
 
Apparently, the disputed broadcast is not to be aired again.
 
No wonder I couldn’t find it online. So why is Arthur identifying it at all then? I assume the public is unaware of the show since if you Google it, you won’t find it. So anyone reading Arthur’s current report would think:
Wow, CPCs are pretending, and maltreating women, how horrid, and I can’t find it online but it must be true!” (Source: Imagination of Patricia Maloney getting fed up of the untruths, deception and misinformation about CPCs)
 
And now Joyce Arthur is using this no longer available and disputed report as further “evidence” that all or most CPCs in Canada mislead women. Arthur even helps the reader along by this notation in her report about the show, a notation that we have only Arthur’s word for, since the show is unavailable for viewing:
CTV. Nov 5, 2000. ‘The Pretenders.’ W-Five documentary news program exposing maltreatment by the Calgary Pregnancy Care Centre of a woman seeking abortion. (Not online)” (Page 34 of Arthur’s 2016 report)

Maltreatment” by a CPC? No proof and no evidence that this is true. And no way to see the W-Five show. Just Arthur’s say so. And it infers a generalization to all CPCs.

Next we have this:
Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice: investigation (Woodward 2012; CTV).
This CTV investigation was initiated by a “client complaint,” CTV stated. When I first heard about this allegation, I could only imagine that the “client” had a copy of Joyce Arthur’s 2009 report in hand, a report that has been shown to be inaccurate.
In fact, when I researched the accuracy of this allegation, I discovered – wait for it – that there never was a client complaint. Astonishing.


Further, the CTV clips had its own inaccuracies. After airing, the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver sued CTV for defamation. The Vancouver CPC settled out of court. Here is a statement made by their executive director Brian Norton following the settlement at that time:

CTV NEWS Update - We described in previous communications with our supporters concerns we had with how CTV News portrayed our Vancouver CPC in a series of television broadcasts earlier this year. We are pleased CTV has since amended the broadcasts posted on its website, as well as the associated web articles.

CTV News Director Margo Harper wrote us concerning its investigation’s purpose:
Our investigation focused predominantly on whether the medical information claims offered by Crisis Pregnancy Centres were accurate … [and] the abortion risks outlined in the brochures offered by these centres were accurate.

Ms. Harper confirmed to us in writing of CTV’s conclusion on these critical issues:
Video of the Vancouver centre was featured briefly in the second story with a voice-over that said the centre offered ‘no far-fetched health warnings’.
CTV News made no claims in our reports suggesting [your CPC] brochures were inaccurate.

While far from a perfect outcome, many of our concerns have been addressed and we will not be spending any more of our time or resources on this issue.” (Source: Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver, Newsletter, dated December 2012 (page 2)) (emphasis added)

In a nutshell, CTV said that the centre offered no far-fetched health warnings’ and made “no claims in our reports suggesting [your CPC] brochures were inaccurate.”

So then what was the point of Arthur mentioning the show at all, when it is not even referred to in her report other than identifying it as one more example to support Arthur’s anti-CPC crusade? Once again it is the title of the initial report and what it implies about CPCs (e.g. Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice) that Arthur likes.

It seems the show was just another notch in Arthur’s belt of CPC attacks. She had to mention it notwithstanding CTV’s News Director Margo Harper’s written statement.

Here is what the BC Catholic says about this CTV investigation: http://bccatholic.ca/the-news/1842-crisis-pregnancy-overseer-sues-ctv-alleging-defamation

Norton said the investigation didn’t focus on the medical authenticity of CPC Vancouver’s medical information and instead used abortion-supporting ‘experts’ to denounce all crisis pregnancy centres for misleading the public with abortion misinformation.

He said CTV gave extensive coverage to Greg Smith, the executive director of Options for Sexual Health (Planned Parenthood B.C.) and Dr. Wendy Norman of BC Women’s Hospital and the former president of Options for Sexual Health. He added that CTV did not interview any of the medical experts involved in writing CPC Vancouver’s … [client options] brochures.”

And this from LifeSite News, quoting extensively from a statement issued by then MP Maurice Vellacott: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-mp-releases-his-own-expose-on-ctv-pregnancy-centre-investigation

The report ignored the scientific literature referenced in the centres brochures which substantiates the centres’ claims that abortion is associated with increased physical and psychological health risks. The reporter was told that this brochure had been reviewed and approved by 25 professional counsellors, physicians and medical researchers. None of this was mentioned in the CTV report.

CTV also declined to interview physicians with expertise in the area of health risks associated with abortion who had been willing to corroborate, on air, the claims made in the brochure.

Furthermore, Dr. Dan Reilly, an obstetrician/gynaecologist who also teaches ethics at McMaster, was interviewed by CTV and briefly appeared on the broadcast, but only his comments that challenged the validity of some of the comments made by the Surrey centre volunteer were aired. Dr. Reilly’s written confirmation of the accuracy of the health risks described in the centre’s brochure was passed on to CTV, but those comments by Dr. Reilly never made it into CTV’s report. Also left out of CTV’s report was the fact that the counsellor at the Vancouver centre received a complete endorsement from Dr. Reilly that her comments were medically correct.

CTV chose to air Dr. Wendy Norman’s comments about abortion being ‘very safe’, neglecting to tell the viewers that Dr. Norman is an abortion provider and researcher and ‘has practiced exclusively in the area of abortion since 1997.’ Her comments to CTV seem to be at odds with the results of a study she herself co-authored which found that ‘Postabortion infection after therapeutic abortion, although uncommon, may have devastating consequences including infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and pelvic pain syndrome.’”

Part 9 - Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC

As noted previously, CAPSS wrote a lengthy rebuttal of Joyce Arthur’s first report in 2009. Arthur’s “study” can pretty much be discounted in its entirety if anyone, including Arthur herself, had the goodwill to actually read the CAPSS 55-page rebuttal to that horrid 2009 report:


I’ll go out on a limb here, and say that I’m pretty sure Arthur read the CAPSS rebuttal. But she never commented on it publicly. She never told the BCHA about it.

I don’t imagine she much liked it. I believe it was too close to the truth. What did Jack Nicholson say in that movie A Few Good Men?

You can’t handle the Truth.”

I’ve also written extensively on Arthur’s 2009 report on my blog:


Here are more moot references in her 2016 report. They are all American references, and / or are invalid web sites: 
NARAL (American) https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/329/abortion-debateprint.htm (invalid link: page not found)
The American National Abortion Federation https://prochoice.org/ (American) 
The American Cosmopolitan Magazine (American) 
CPC Watch http://www.cpcwatch.org (This site is about Car Seat Safety Checks; nothing about CPCs on this site)  
The American Guttmacher Institute (American) https://www.guttmacher.org/

And of course Arthur references her own writings at Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and her Pro-Choice Action Network, the credibility of which are as suspect as any of Arthur’s writings.

Two French studies:


One of these sites references Arthur’s 2009 report twelve times, plus two other references to her ARCC website. That’s fourteen references in total to Arthur’s own writing. Naturally she would include these references.

CONCLUSION

On the whole of it, one must wonder what Arthur’s agenda is as she continues to hound and persecute CPCs for the good work they do for women in crisis pregnancy situations. Why does Arthur feel this obsessive need to denigrate and spread falsehoods about CPCs on a continual and unabated basis? Where does this hate come from?

I can’t answer any of these questions. But I can provide the reader, in contrast to Arthur, an honest and verifiable perspective about crisis pregnancy centres.

Crisis pregnancy centres are safe places for women to go to when experiencing confusion or fear about an unintended pregnancy. There they will receive love and compassion from people who are trained in giving them information about their options, and ultimately supporting them whatever they decide to do.

It’s difficult to read and research the hatred that exists towards these centres. There is so much misinformation and untruths out there made by persons – prominently here in Canada by abortion activist Joyce Arthur – who clearly have an agenda to destroy these centres.

Their motives are difficult to understand, but the results of their actions harm and discredit the centres, the people who work there, and the women they serve. Ultimately, it will be the women and men who use these centres who will be most affected by the witch hunts of persons who wish to see these centres closed.

One quote I found regarding the work CPCs do was this: “They share God’s love through their actions.”

Amen I say to that.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 5)

Part 6 – Training

Arthur:
They [CPCs] are generally run by untrained or very little trained volunteers...they get some biblically trained training.” (Source: Arthur’s podcast to BCHA https://player.fm/series/bc-humanists-podcast/joyce-arthur-crisis-pregnancy-centres-in-canada)

I know I’m being repetitive here, but how can anyone conclude anything about a training regime from reading a website? This is clearly impossible. But that doesn’t stop Arthur from making these false allegations. In fact in CAPSS rebuttal of Arthur’s 2009 report, Norton says this about the training for his organization’s two CPCs (in Vancouver and Burnaby), which are normative for many or most CAPSS centres:

Our charity begins with 21 hours of seminars provided by skilled practitioners in their field of expertise. As examples: a physician on abortion procedures, a registered nurse or doctor on fetal development, a psychologist on counselling, an adoption social worker on adoptions, and so on.

Following these introductory seminars, in-service training happens under the tutelage and supervision of our CPC program directors. (For Ms. Arthur’s plant [undercover “volunteer”], her mentor was a registered nurse.) After completing reading assignments, and participating in dyad and triad role plays, volunteers then observe (with client permission) peer counseling sessions. Volunteers are observed in sessions before assisting clients on their own.

Finally, Exit Surveys (which are reviewed by the CPC program directors) are made available to clients for evaluating the effectiveness and sensitivity of their volunteer helper. All CAPSS affiliated centres in Canada adhere to Best Practice training guidelines.

We respectfully challenge Ms. Arthur to publicly disclose which centres in British Columbia are allegedly providing training sessions of only a “few hours” or “two to three weeks at most”. (Source: Page 34 of CAPSS rebuttal)

This completely contradicts Arthur’s allegations that volunteers are untrained and/or simply biblically trained. I remind the reader that Arthur received a copy of the CAPSS rebuttal quoted above. Still she makes this stuff up.

And once again, Arthur never disclosed which centres gave such poor training, and she is now repeating these same false allegations to the BCHA.

Birthright also provides extensive training for volunteers. From their website:

Training for new Birthright volunteers starts with a full understanding of the philosophy of Birthright as outlined in its Charter and Policy Directives. New volunteers typically start by partnering with an experienced volunteer who is able to answer questions and explain the office operations. Volunteers are able to grow into their role in Birthright at their own pace and develop their knowledge and skills on an ongoing basis through continuous role-modeling with Birthright peers, reading and discussion, and the annual Birthright International conventions.

Providing emotional support and practical help to women is always the first priority of Birthright volunteers. After completing a training program, volunteers are assigned a regular shift at the Birthright office - usually 3-4 hours once a week - that suits the volunteers’ schedule for reliable commitment for a period of time. Volunteers handle a variety of phone calls, including those from girls and women who are overwhelmed about being pregnant or fear they may be pregnant. Volunteers also help women who come to the office, whether for a free pregnancy test, referrals and information or for a welcoming friend. Some volunteers choose to help in other ways, such as sorting and distributing maternity and baby clothes, cleaning the office, gardening or administrative work. Experienced volunteers often make presentations to school and community groups about Birthright and its services.” (Source: http://birthright.org/en/get-involved)

Once again Arthur’s allegations are not based on fact.

Part 7 – General nonsense


Arthur:
They [CPCs] do provide misleading and inaccurate information, pretty much all of them if not on their website then in their brochures and in person. They use ethically questionable counseling techniques.” Emphasis added. (Source: Arthur’s podcast to BCHA https://player.fm/series/bc-humanists-podcast/joyce-arthur-crisis-pregnancy-centres-in-canada)

Misleading and inaccurate information on websites?
Not true. By my evidence provided, we see that Arthur is making a verifiable false allegation.
(To remind the reader, I’ve provided in Section I the entire content – verbatim – of the CAPSS client brochure pertaining to abortion information, procedures and informed consent.)

Now to this third and final false allegation by Arthur. As you will see, Arthur also just makes this up:
“They [CPCs] do provide misleading and inaccurate information…’in person’.”
“In person”? By her own admission neither Arthur nor her volunteers met any of the CPC staff, so in-person meetings never happened.
“Ethically questionable counseling techniques”? How can Arthur say this when by Arthur’s own admission, there was no personal contact with the CPCs?
Another problem with Arthur’s study is that she uses many resources from American experiences of American CPCs, which have nothing to do with Canadians CPCs. I have no idea whether the allegations regarding American CPCs are true or not, and I suspect that most or all of them are untrue. But Arthur’s allegations of guilt by association are not evidence of anything.

Arthur:
Many U.S.-based studies or investigative reports have been done on American CPCs, and all have consistently exposed their tactics of misinformation and deception. A few key ones are listed in the References (City Attorney of San Francisco 2011; NAF 2006; NARAL 2015; SIECUS n.d.; VICE News 2014; Waxman 2006; Winter 2015a/b).” (Source: Page 6 of Arthur’s 2016 report)

Here Arthur makes conclusions about Canadian CPCs based on what supposedly happens in American CPCs. I’m pretty sure these kinds of conclusions would not merit the “scientific study” Arthur is hoping for with her report.
Using Arthur’s ridiculous logic, she would (I guess) believe that many of the abortion clinics in Canada are questionable, unhygienic, and participate in illegal and criminal activities. Including patient deaths. Why? Because it is common knowledge that dozens of abortion clinics have been shut down in their respective states for such proven incompetence and criminal practices.
Here are only a few examples of abortion clinic violations, closed clinics, abortion related deaths, etc., in the United States:
Abortion Industry Negligence Nationwide: Highlighting the Most Egregious Offenses: https://www.sba-list.org/negligence
Exposing Substandard Abortion Facilities: The Pervasiveness of True “Back-Alley” Practices http://www.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/exposing-substandard.pdf
And this one is my favourite. It is a 206-page report:

UNSAFE - HOW THE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS IN AMERICA’S ABORTION CLINICS ENDANGERS WOMEN: http://unsafereport.org/
The report identifies the top 10 violations of American abortion clinics. Below is the description of only the first violation. Then in the report itself, the offending clinics are identified and which state they are in. There are 130 clinics for this one violation alone. There are nine more violations, each one with its own list of clinics.
Violation 1
FAILURE TO ENSURE A SAFE AND SANITARY ENVIRONMENT AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW INFECTION CONTROL POLICIES
More than 130 abortion providers in 22 states failed to follow established infection control protocols. The implicated states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Common violations included failure to follow handing washing protocols, failure to convene infection control committees, and refusal to develop infectious disease protocols.
Other Violations documented by state officials included:
  • Quality assurance programs were not properly implemented.
  • Autoclave and sterilization procedures were not followed.
  • Clinics were generally “unclean,” including some where there was evidence of bloody drainage and fluids on exam tables.
  • Dry blood and/or rust found on equipment.
  • Instruments labeled as “sterilized,” but displaying rust and/or dried blood.
  • Reusable equipment and instruments were not cleaned and sterilized.
  • Contaminated syringe containers were stored incorrectly.
  • The bodily remains of aborted children were stored in the same refrigerator as medications and/or food.
  • Staff members in some facilities were unable to locate sterile suturing supplies and equipment.
  • In a Chicago abortion clinic, a recovery room technician was observed retrieving a paper towel from the garbage and using the same paper towel to cover a tray that would later serve food to patients.
Patients were further exposed to unsanitary conditions by improper water temperatures for laundry, sterilizers not being cleaned monthly, single-use vials being used multiple times and on different patients, vaginal probes not being disinfected between uses, and infectious waste not stored or disposed of properly.
Then follows seven more pages of abortion clinics who failed this one violation.
Here are the remainder nine violations. I’ll spare the reader all the details, and just list the violation itself:
2. FAILURE TO ACCURATELY DOCUMENT PATIENT RECORDS AND KEEP PATIENT MEDICAL INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL
3. FAILURE TO ENSURE STAFF ARE PROPERLY TRAINED FOR DUTIES
4. UNLICENSED/UNQUALIFIED/UNTRAINED STAFF PROVIDING PATIENT CARE
5. EXPIRED MEDICATIONS AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES
6. FAILURE TO PURCHASE AND MAINTAIN REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
7. FAILURE TO ADOPT, FOLLOW, AND/OR PERIODICALLY REVIEW HEALTH AND
SAFETY PROTOCOLS
8. FAILURE TO PROPERLY HANDLE MEDICATIONS
9. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PHYSICAL PLANT STANDARDS
10. FAILURE TO MONITOR PATIENT VITAL SIGNS
So much tragedy including needless deaths and patient harm, violations of every kind, in hundreds of clinics all over America. Dozens of these clinics have been charged and or shut down.
What does this then say about abortion clinics in Canada? Nothing. Similarly, if there were CPCs in the USA which have been misleading in their services, what would this say about centres in Canada? Nothing.
All the references in Arthur’s study that were identified in relation to American CPCs, whether bogus or not, are irrelevant.