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.