Part 6 – Training
“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.
“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.
“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.
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
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.