Media buys into pro-abortion witch hunt of CPCs

Great rebuttal to Joyce Arthur's recent "study" (witch hunt) against crisis pregnancy centres in Canada.

I see that Anna Mehler Paperny of Global news has bought into Arthur's misinformation on CPC's.

Maybe they should instead educate themselves on Arthur's unrelenting campaign to discredit CPC's.

Joyce Arthur's study subtracts from the body of knowledge

I must confess I laughed at this post over at anonymous blogger's blog, about a "major study" by Joyce Arthur. "Fern Hill" even got her "name" on this so called "serious study".

Major and serious are not words I would ever attribute to anything Joyce Arthur writes.

The problem is, this is not at all funny. It looks like just one more witch hunt by Arthur and her pro-abortion friends. These people absolutely hate crisis pregnancy centres. They will stop at nothing to discredit them and bring them down. Why? Are they jealous of the care, love and support these centres provide women when face with an unexpected pregnancy? I think they are. Because all the pro-abortions care about is that women experiencing an unexpected pregnancy should choose to kill their unborn child. They don't care for the woman. And they definitely don't care about the child she is carrying.

A quick look at the "study" tells me that it is just a reheated version of Arthur's previous "study", where she went after CPCs in BC. In fact Brian Norton did a brilliant job of setting the record straight on Arthur's last "study". Which by the way, was funded by a $27,400 Status of Women Canada grant, a grant which Arthur never publicly acknowledged as per the agreement she signed with SWC. See here and here for more on that grant.

In this "study" Arthur and her anonymous friends only reviewed CPC websites. By her own admission this "study" doesn't even address how CPC's actually speak or support their clients.

"An important caveat of this study is that we examined only the websites of CPCs, which may not necessarily reflect their practices or counselling when they speak to clients in person or on the phone."

And then there's this gem. Arthur wants to add to the "body of knowledge" of CPC's.

"The aim of this study was to determine the presence of any deception or misinformation on the websites of Canadian CPCs. Due to the relative dearth of research on CPCs in Canada, we felt it important to add to the body of knowledge on the topic as we seek out opportunities to regulate these organizations. We expected to find that CPC websites would reflect the same type of misinformation and/or deception that other studies and investigations have found that people encounter when patronizing CPCs. While we did find significant misinformation, our study also found that many websites present an unbiased appearance and tend to conceal their agenda or give only subtle indications of it, presumably to attract (and not repel) or even trick women considering abortion into using their services."

Does Arthur really believe her shenanigans, deceptions and misinformation add anything to anything? And trick women? Who is trying to trick whom here? First clue. It's not CPC's.

For pro-abortions' petition - see Charter

Regarding this ridiculous pro-abortion petition, here is what lawyer Carol Crosson had to say to me in an e-mail on this petition:

The TTC, as a government entity, is subject to the Charter, in particular section 2(b), which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Government transit was found to be subject to the Charter in Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority in 2009, where the Supreme Court ruled that advertising on the sides of buses is protected under the Charter and when transit policies prohibit expression, this prohibition is subject to the Charter. 

The TTC does not have the right to prohibit a pro-life message due to the controversial nature of the message. Freedom of expression included the right to communicate controversial and unpopular messages. The Supreme Court has noted that the purpose of protection for freedom of expression extends to protecting “beliefs which the majority regard as wrong or false”, frequently involving “a contest between the majoritarian view of what is true or right and an unpopular minority view”. The Court has also ruled that section 2(b) protects all non-violent expressive activity, without discrimination based on content, however unpopular, distasteful, or contrary to the mainstream. 

In Wilson v University of Calgary, 2014 ABQB 190, a case about a pro-life display on the campus of the University of Calgary, the Court determined that the pro-life message lies "at the very heart of freedom of expression". 

There are exceptions to the rule that speech should be protected. Speech that threatens violence, public incitement of hatred, genocide as well as obscenity, is prohibited under the Criminal Code. “Hate speech” is not protected in Canada. However, the legal standard for hate speech is very high, as affirmed at the Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11.  These ads in no way violate the Criminal Code or legally qualify as hate speech. 

Other than these few exceptions, the right to share a particular message, despite its disturbing nature, is protected by the Charter. 

So, individuals may fill out petitions because they view these pro-life ads as "scare tactics and christian [sic] propaganda", but Pregnancy Care Centre advertisements posted on City transit buses are protected under the Charter. They cannot be prohibited because some individuals disagree with them, find them distasteful or even controversial.

It is of note that the Canadian Code of Advertising is a mechanism of Advertising Standards Canada, which is a private entity, holding no legal power, and not compelled to adhere to the Charter. The TTC may use the Code as a guide in regulating its advertising. However, If the ad in question is not found in accordance with the Code, the TTC is still compelled to adhere to the Charter, which gives a broad berth to controversial messages.

Carol Crosson 

Barrister and Solicitor

Crosson Constitutional Law

For pro-abortions, the truth is what they say it is

I wrote here about a nasty petition going around, that was trying to get the TTC to remove this ad:

The pro-abortions used this "logic" to defend their petition:

"Pregnancy Care Centers are anti-choice and are known to provide women with false medical information on abortions. They use scare tactics and christian propaganda to influence people's decisions."

This is what Brian Norton of Christian Advocacy Society had to say about the petition:

"Oh no! Due to the politics of abortion, this is another one of those uninformed, misleading petitions being circulated.
   
The faith-based charity where I work has governed, now for 25 years, two pregnancy centres in BC, along with a residential shelter for abused women, and a sexual assault counselling consortium.
   
The issue of concern articulated in this petition is as follows: “Pregnancy Care Centers are anti-choice and are known to provide women with false medical information on abortions.”
   
In fact, pregnancy centres in Canada (to avoid any claim of source material bias) disproportionately refer to prochoice sources and prochoice affirmed epidemiological studies.
   
For example, regarding all physical risk factors (except one controversial risk still being studied), these are directly sourced from abortion clinics across Canada. Space permits noting only a few such abortion clinics: Women’s Health Clinic (Winnipeg), Brampton Women’s Clinic, Clinique Médicale Fémina (Montreal) and Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital.
   
In addition, the client brochure with abortion medical information (which many or most pregnancy centres have available) has been “reviewed by more than 45 specialized practitioners in Canada, including perinatal nurses, family physicians, obstetricians/gynaecologists, medical ethicists, psychologists and social workers.”
   
Finally, the majority of pregnancy centres in Canada are members of the national best practice association, Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS). Any member centre which does not adhere to CAPSS’ stringent ‘Commitment of Care & Competence’ and ‘Code of Counselling Ethics’ will be disaffiliated.
   
For the few of you still reading this comment post …
   
To read about other erroneous allegations on pregnancy centres in Canada, you may wish to google “A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report”.
   
Whether we are “prochoice” or “prolife” or “undecided” on the ethics of abortion, we likely will agree that if a centre is able to offer a client accurate information – with realistic options and solutions to her unique barriers for continuing her pregnancy to term – she becomes more empowered to make an informed decision in accordance with what is most important to her.
   
Brian Norton
www.christianadvocacy.ca"

It's the petition that's saying things that are not true, and not CPCs at all.

I think our take away from this is that the pro-abortions have decided they just don't like crisis pregnancy centres, because they are life affirming. So instead, the pro-abortions have to make stuff up about CPCs.

(Note that as of writing, 14,496 people have thus far actually signed this petition. Do they really have any idea of what they're signing, and that what the petition is saying isn't even true? That...is a scary thought.)

Tell the TTC we love the CPC ads

The pro-abortions are at it again. They have a petition going, to take down a crisis pregnancy care centre ad, on the Toronto Transit Commission's buses:

"Pregnancy Care Centers are anti-choice and are known to provide women with false medical information on abortions.  They use scare tactics and christian propaganda to influence people's decisions.  In Canada, by law all women are allowed a safe and affordable abortion. 

To be able to make the best decisions for ourselves, we MUST receive accurate information. 

We ask that the Toronto Transit Commision [sic] Advertising Review Working Group see that the ad goes against Canadian views on women's access and health, and to remove the ad."

Their claim above is a fairy tale. In actual fact, CPCs do not provide women with false medical information or use scare tactics.

In case any of those pro-abortions would like to read some actual facts on these centres, I suggest they get their heads out of Alice in Wonderland's book, and read this.

They might learn some actual truths about CPCs, and even though the facts may be very hard for them to grasp, I'm sure if they try real hard they can do it. They just need to try.

I also suggest that we all contact the TTC with our own emails in support of this ad.

Sample letter:

I'm [delighted/pleased/happy] to see advertisements from Pregnancy Care Centres on the TTC. Pregnancy Care Centres are centres known to provide women with complete & accurate information on sexual health and abortions. They are known to use real data as well as actual videos and pictures to influence people`s decisions. Please continue these ads. To read more about the good CPCs do in Canada, please read here: http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/07/why-joyce-arthurs-report-is-harmful-to.html Thank you.

Please make sure you use the TTC compliment form here.

Pro-abortions can't be bothered with the truth

I love it when the pro-abortions prove our point.

The last time I wrote about Joyce Arthur's pathetic "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC" I said:

"For all those people who reference Arthur's report, it really doesn't do their pro-abortion cause any good. It just makes them look like they don't know what they're talking about. Or maybe they just can't get out of the way of their own ideology."

Today I read this from Lianne McTavish:

"Yesterday I received an e-mail from some antiabortion guy, asking me to have an expose of so-called “crisis pregnancy centres” removed from the internet. How flattering that he identified me as an all-powerful pro-choice goddess. He also flattered himself, however, by imagining that I would a) recognize either him or his organization; b) give a flying fuck about his views on women’s bodies; c) take the time to read his 65-page-long attachment. Sorry misogynist dude, but I have better things to do than listen to right wing religious men who are hell bent on controlling women."

If McTavish bothered to read the report she couldn't be bothered reading--she might actually embarrass herself when she finds out just how much of Arthur's report is really just a pro-abortion's flight into fancy.

No no no. Can't let a good fairy tale get in the way of a pro-abortion's ideology.

Zoom. Zoom.

Why Joyce Arthur's "report" is harmful to BC CPCs

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Because there are a lot of falsehoods out there.

For instance, Joyce Arthur's signature "report", Exposing Crisis Pregnancy centres in BC, is a good example of inaccuracies, deceptions and misinformation.

Yet surprisingly, there are actually people writing, who refer to this "research" as if it is a credible source of information.

Now Brian Norton from Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) has written a rebuttal to Arthur's "report".

Norton begins his rebuttal:

The report makes numerous claims that are not based in fact or reality. The following are some blatant examples (before we discuss the most serious allegations).  

The report alleges the Birthright drop-in centre in Vernon, British Columbia, shows graphic videos to clients. “When women have gone to the local Birthright office, some have had to wait an hour and a half before being given a pregnancy test, during which time they were put into a room to watch anti-abortion videos like the ‘Silent Scream’” (p. 11).13 On doing a fact check with Birthright headquarters, I learned there is no Birthright in Vernon and there never has been.14  

The report continues: “[In Powell River the Prolife Society] … houses one of the fundamentalist Christian CPCs that uses high pressure techniques and is connected to the larger network of North American CPCs” (p. 11). There is in fact no CPC in Powell River and there never has been.15  

The report makes statements about other non-existent centres in BC (pp. 45-46).
16 One so-called CPC is a secular parenting support group. Another CPC is actually a Christian adoption agency.  

Another purported CPC is somebody’s home. For two other listed CPCs the premises do not exist.17

The report not only refers to non-existent pregnancy centres in our province, but everywhere. 

There are 117 CPCs in Canada.18 The report nearly doubles this to “about 200 CPCs” (p. 3). 

In the United States there are some 2,500 CPCs. 

19 According to an American CPC association, “Usually our opponents will use 3,000 locations which seems a purposeful overstatement.”20 The report rounds this up to “4,000” (p. 3).  

Regarding abortion clinics, The New York Times estimates there are some 1,800 US clinics.21

The report rounds this down to 800 (p. 3) sourcing the National Abortion Federation (p. 19).  

The NAF reference – footnoted in the report as “800 clinics” – actually says “2,000 clinics”.22  

Furthermore, the report is riddled with inaccurate ‘throwaway’ remarks.
23 (See footnote.)

Read Brian Norton's entire rebuttal to Arthur's damaging "report".

Norton identifies eight serious allegations in Arthur's report, along with 12 silly allegations. Norton did actual research in writing his rebuttal. And unlike Arthur, he didn't get $27,400 from the Status of Women to do it.

If Arthur wants to make things up, that's one thing. But when other people start referencing her "research" well that's another thing entirely. And that's the real problem with her harmful "report". Other people refer to it.

Here are a list of professional people and organizations who reference Arthur's work.

1) Dr. Sam Rowlands MB BS, MD, LLM, FRCGP, FFSRH, DRCOG (UK abortion rights advocate).

This is what a reviewer from a conference organized by Dr. Rowlands had to say:

"Dr Sam Rowlands, Honorary Associate Professor at the Institute of Clinical Medicine, Warwick Medical School and organiser of this conference at the RSM, discussed the key sources of ‘misinformation’ that are popularised in relation to abortion. He outlined five claims: that abortion poses a risk to a woman’s life, to her mental health, or to her future fertility, that it carries an increased risk of breast cancer, and the preoccupation with ‘fetal pain’, and briefly debunked these claims by using solid research. 

The sources of such misinformation vary from websites to non-peer-reviewed journals, and are particularly troubling in relation to the biased or false information given directly to women by so-called ‘Crisis Pregnancy Centres’. Rowlands referred to a 2009 study by Joyce Arthur of such centres in a province of Canada as an example of how this misinformation process works through."

2) The Canadian Women’s Health Network (CWHN):

"A new study by the Pro-Choice Action Network finds that most agencies that counsel pregnant women are actually anti-abortion Christian ministries whose main goal is to stop women from having abortions. These centres are generally not medical facilities, and most of their "counsellors" are volunteers who are not medical professionals and have no recognized training in counselling. Some of these centres are called Crisis Pregnancy Centres or "CPCs", although many of them have different names. This research project on anti-abortion counseling centres in British Columbia, or "fake clinics," has been published, and is available."

3) Feminist Women's Health Center (from Wastington state). 

FWHC has a section called "fake clinics", and refers to Arthur's report, saying this:

"Exposing CPCs in British Columbia, Canada - CPCs far outnumber abortion clinics. There are 4,000 CPCs in the United States, compared to about 800 abortion clinics. In Canada, there are about 200 CPCs and roughly 25 abortion clinics. In BC, there are about 30 CPCs and 6 abortion clinics."

4) On the University of Windsor website is a paper written by Jessica Shaw from the University of Calgary, called "Abortion as a Social Justice Issue in Contemporary Canada".

Shaw relies heavily on Arthur's other "research" for references, as well as Arthur's inaccurate "report" discussed here.
(And this is scary. The policy for submissions to this Critical Social Work Journal is supposedly peer reviewed: "The peer review process is double blind, in that the identity of authors and reviewers is not known to either party").

4) The UK (Education Financial Council). They refer to Arthur's misleading "report", saying:

"Widespread anecdotal evidence in the UK, and full-scale research reports from the United States, ireland and Canada, indicate that some CPCs do not provide impartial poignancy decision-making support and that many are formed with a specific anti-abortion agenda".

5) West Coast LEAF is an organization in BC "that uses the law to further women’s equality". They refer to Arthur's inaccurate "report":

"According to research conducted by the Pro-Choice Action Network, “crisis pregnancy
centres” (CPCs) “are actually anti-choice Christian ministries, often pretending to be
non-biased medical clinics or counselling centres. Their main goal is to stop women
from having abortions and to convert women to Christianity."

6) The CTV devoted a whole three part investigation, based on Arthur's faulty "report": Jan 7, Jan18, Jan 20. You'd think at least CTV would check their facts before going undercover.

7) Finally, is the Status of Woman Canada, who funded Arthur's to write this defective report in the first place. With your tax dollars. Does anybody at the Status of Women actually check to see what they're funding  to see if it's accurate, before they dole out our money? It doesn't look like it.

For all those people who reference Arthur's report, it really doesn't do their pro-abortion cause any good. It just makes them look like they don't know what they're talking about. Or maybe they just can't get out of the way of their own ideology.

So what does Norton want? He would like Arthur to remove her sorry excuse for a "report" from the Internet. Let's hope she has the decency to do so.

Exposing the specificity of Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC

Today I re-read Faye Sonier's article, reprinted in LifeCanada's Journal, on the BC Crisis Pregnancy Centres defamation case against Joyce Arthur Defamation Suit and the Tactic of Being Vague.

Faye says:

Unfortunately the court found that the report was so unclear in its attributions of wrong-doing that a reasonable person reading the report wouldn’t necessarily think that the Vancouver and Burnaby CPCs were guilty of committing those particular ethical breaches. As the judge ruled, “it is difficult to say that the ‘deceptive’ tactics reflect personally on the plaintiffs. The impugned statements do not have any specificity; the Report describes the tactics in broad generalizations.”

I always thought Arthur was writing about BC's CPCs, for the same reasons Faye does:

And keep in mind, that these allegations are made within a report entitled Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, where that title appears on the top of each page of the report, wherein the stated goal of the report is to “find out what these centres were doing and saying to women in B.C., and whether they were engaging in deceptive or harmful practices,” and where the appendix lists only B.C. CPCs. I think the average reader would likely assume that the allegations made within the report apply to B.C. CPCs, and likely to the two CPCs which launched the suit against Arthur.

What exactly is not specific about "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia" appearing as a title on every page of the report?

I decided to take another look at my ATIP to Status of Women regarding the infamous $27,400 funding Joyce Arthur received to write this horrid report.

Here are a few "specific" references to CPCs in BC from that ATIP. And remember. This document is what clinched the funding for Arthur.

From Arthur's proposal:

There are CPC's in almost every city in BC. With the closure of many women's centres, and the brief office hours of most family planning clinics around BC, comprehensive and non-judgmental reproductive services for women (and referrals to such services) are becoming very difficult to access. In some areas, women may only be able to access the local CPC. In fact, CPC's are striving to replace feminist-based agencies. They even obtained government funding from the BC Liberals while funding cuts for Women's Centres were being planned. 

It is critical to research and evaluate the extent and impact of CPCs' reach and influence in BC. Armed with this knowledge, we can take concrete steps to stem the tide, by educating women and the public about the true nature of these centres, lobbying government to stop funding them, using the media to publicize the CPC anti-feminist agenda and tactics, and promoting and establishing feminist-based alternative services for women.

Under the document entitled Goal and Objectives in Arthur's proposal:

The overall goal of this social justice project is to minimize the harmful impact of CPC's through public education. As part of that goal, we hope to be able to accomplish the following objectives:

• research the current situation in BC -- for example, numbers, locations, sizes, and resources of CPC's and similar agencies
• research community influence of CPC's — for example, relationship between them and other women's groups, whether legitimate agencies refer to them, alternative services in the community impact on minority groups and youth in particular, etc.
• research how CPC's shape public policy and discourse on reproductive rights — for example:
• – analyze how these groups are co-opting feminist language and strategies while using them to foster a right-wing patriarchal agenda that promotes a traditional, narrow role for women as wives and mothers
• – evaluate how and to what extent their anti-feminist agenda asserts itself into the public consciousness and negatively impacts women's ability to achieve equality
• – evaluate their relative success at supplanting feminist-based resources in local communities in BC, and look at ways to counter this
• solicit and collect stories from women who have been harmed or deceived by CPC services
• research and try to curtail CPC's public funding sources
• publicity expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPC's using various public education and media initiatives, and by doing so, work to mitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women
• shift public awareness by alerting and educating the following target audiences (in BC):
• — women
• — aboriginal, minority, and youth group— women's groups and other community organizations
• — health professionals and institutions who might refer to CPC's, including doctors, walk-in clinics, hospitals, counselors, family planning clinics — government
• — public

Under section 24. JUSTIFICATION

Expected concrete results: 

1. To examine the state and organization of CPC's in B.C., including numbers, size, locations, funding sources, their influence in the community and how they shape public policy discourse on reproductive health issues

2. To examine the ways in which CPCs disseminate deceptive and misleading information to circumscribe women's right to full reproductive agency

3. To produce a report detailing the research findings, which will be used as a tool to inform the public about the anti-woman agenda and practices of CPCs, with a particular focus on educating women's organizations, health professionals and government as well as individual women

4. To implement any changes recommended in the report

5. To persuade CPCs to alter their current practices in order to ensure women have full choice over their reproductive health 

In Arthur's Summary Of Expected Outcomes:

• Public discourse on the issue of women's reproductive choices is drawn from a broad spectrum of perspectives, including a feminist perspective

• Diverse women throughout BC have full access to comprehensive arid nonjudgmental reproductive services

And finally, this from Status of Women Canada, in their recommendation for approval of the funding to Arthur, and SWC's brief description of the initiative:

This initiative seeks to ensure access by a diversity of women in British Columbia to comprehensive and non-jugmental reproductive services as well as a representative speck of perspectives on women's reproductive rights. It has two related components, research and public education. The first component will consist of examining the current trend towards the proliferation of crisis pregnancy centres operating in the province and their role in shaping public discourse on women's reproductive rights. The second part of the initiative will be to inform the public, educators, health professionals and governments about the results of this research. This information will help ensure the public has an accurate understanding of the various approaches to supporting towards women's reproductive choice, as part of an overall strategy to provide the public with a comprehensive understanding of women's reproductive rights. A set of indicators will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of both components of this initiative in achieving planned outcomes. 

There's only one question left to ask.

If Arthur's report is not "specifically" referring to Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, then why would Status of Women Canada, use funds from the Women's Program, whose mandate "is to achieve the full participation of women in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada. Funding is provided to eligible organizations in support of projects at the local, regional and national levels", hand over Canadian tax dollars, to a Canadian person, for a report that is about Crisis Pregnancy Centres not in Canada?

Exposing "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC"

The two Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC recently lost their defamation case against Joyce Arthur for her report "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC."

Their press release states:

"As stated in his legal argument to the court at paragraph 18 "The defendants' position in this application is that as a matter of law the impugned passages in the report are not capable of being found to refer to the plaintiffs, and in any event, as a matter of fact the report would not lead a reasonable person who knows the plaintiffs to conclude that the passages refer to them"; and at paragraph 20 "... no reasonable reader of the report would feel able to draw any conclusions about the practices at the CPCs operated by the plaintiffs" (i.e. the Vancouver and Burnaby centres).

The Judge who heard legal argument on this matter in early April ultimately accepted those submissions, stating at paragraph 92 of her reasons for judgement, released on August 26th, that "As it is never made clear in the Report what 'many or most' entails with regard to CPCs across North America, it is difficult to say the 'deceptive' tactics reflect personally on the plaintiffs. The impugned statements do not have any specificity; the Report describes the tactics in broad generalizations." And then her conclusion at paragraph 98, that "I conclude the alleged defamatory statements are not of and concerning the plaintiffs."

The Crisis Pregnancy Centres are obviously confused by this ruling, since as they so aptly point out, the report:

• Is titled Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, and which title appears typed at the top on all 65-pages of the report, including the pages where the Allegations appear.
• Describes its purpose as: "We wanted to find out what these centres were doing and saying to women in BC, and whether they were engaging in deceptive or harmful practices."
• Lists the Vancouver and Burnaby Centres in an appendix to the report along with, and only, CPCs in BC.
• Focuses most of the content (main text and appendixes) specifically on CPCs in BC (including our own CPCs).

But there is another reason that this ruling is troublesome. It is because of the very nature of the research itself, that was conducted for the report.

By her own admission, Arthur's research included using a volunteer to infiltrate CPCs in BC, by sending out surveys, by phone calls and by visits. All these activities were done of CPCs in BC, not to CPCs in anywhere else in North America. How could Arthur know that those activities and strategies are common to "many or most" CPCs throughout North America like she states? Other than a couple of footnotes, all of Arthur's hands on research was done in BC. Not anywhere else.

In fact, for Arthur's statement that "many or most” of 4000 US centres behave badly, she only has a few isolated footnotes about what a few of them do. How on earth can she generalize from a few bad apples to the majority? Almost certainly pure speculation.

The question that arises about this research is this. What are vague allegations about US centres, doing in a report about BC centres, other than to imply that what Arthur alleges is true of the US centres, is also true of the BC centres?

That is the implication readers will take from her report – that BC Centres do these bad things too. Is this what Arthur intended all along?

(See below for a list of my previous writings on this subject. They discuss some other interesting fun facts about the report. Like how Arthur's Pro Choice Action Network received $27,400 in a government grant from Status of Women Canada to write the report. And how PRO-CAN never publicly acknowledged that grant like they were supposed to.)

(This was first published on LifeNews in January 2010)
Supporting Women in Canada Means Educating That Abortion Hurts Women

Apr 05, 2010
Status of Women Canada pays extreme group to discredit CPCs

April 16, 2010
"pregnancy support groups" vs "crisis pregnancy centres"

April 27, 2010
Mr. Harper must support the abortion debate

June 25, 2012
Don't let the numbers fool you

(First published in LifeCanada's Journal)
Jan 06, 2013
Joyce Arthur's Pro-Can grant: an investigation, Part I
Mar 09, 2013
Joyce Arthur's Pro-Can grant: an investigation, Part II

Supporting Women in Canada Means Educating That Abortion Hurts Women

(This was first published on LifeNews in January 2010)

Canada, unlike the United States, has no abortion laws. The abortion law we did have was struck down in 1988 by the Supreme Court of Canada when challenged by Dr. Henry Morgentaler, an abortion doctor.

Our Court declared in that ruling, that the existing law violated a woman's right to "security of the person" under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This ruling had to do with procedural problems related to Therapeutic Abortion Committees where a panel of doctors had the authority to grant a woman a certificate to obtain a legal abortion if they felt continuation of the pregnancy would be harmful to the woman's health. The court did not rule that the Charter granted a "right to abortion". Since then, all attempts to create any legal abortion restrictions, have failed.

As Americans debate publicly funded abortions, they should take note that in Canada, all abortions are paid for by our public health care system. And because Canada has no abortion laws at all, abortion is legally permissible up until the moment of birth, and for any reason.

The only recourse pro-life Canadians have against abortion, is education. This includes education that comes from crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs).

CPCs are organizations that provide support and information to pregnant women who choose to keep their unborn child or decide to give the child up for adoption. These centres are alternatives to abortion clinics, both for the support they provide and for the information they give. These centres don't just help women who choose to give birth, but even those who haven't made a decision yet whether to abort or not. Many of these centres also help women who have already had abortions and are grieving.

Now these centres (CPCs also exist in the US) are under attack as radical feminist organizations try to maintain their any-time, any-reason, publicly funded access to abortion.

Recently one such organization, the Pro-Choice Action Network (Pro-Can), decided to go on the offensive against CPCs, resulting in a scathing report condemning these centres in British Columbia, Canada.

All right minded people need to ask themselves an extremely important question in light of this report.

Should pregnant women be able to get support and information from an organization that does not advocate abortion? I am not asking if we should support a pro-life philosophy. I am asking if women, in a free and democratic society, can choose to go to an organization that will not advocate abortion?

Pro-Can believes the answer is no and tries hard to get you to agree with them. They believe we must "beware" these organizations, that they "mistreat" and "deceive" women and give them misinformation". Based on what you ask? Well, lots of unsubstantiated claims, innuendo and anonymous sources. What evidence is provided, can easily be refuted with other evidence.

Pro-Can's so-called research project, "Exposing Crisis pregnancy centre's in British Columbia" states that these centres are "fake clinics" and that they are "anti-choice Christian ministries" that "often pretend to be non-biased medical clinics".

But these centres are not fake--they tell women they do not provide abortions and are not medical clinics (see Appendix 3 of report for individual centres' websites).

Pro-Can "infiltrated" some CPCs, by sending in a volunteer, and visiting or calling a number of them. The report also tries to discredit a volunteer manual obtained from the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS), an umbrella organization for some of these centres.

Here are just three examples of how Pro-Can attempts to disparage these CPCs.

First, they refute the relationship between abortion and breast cancer (ABC). One reference used is based on a 2003 National Cancer Institute symposium that concluded there was no link. Yet that same symposium had dissension. One participant stated he was "convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real, independent, positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk."

See Joel Brind's (Ph.D., Professor, Human Biology and Endocrinology) full statement here.

Here are other studies that support the ABC link.

Second, when can a fetus feel pain? Pro-Can's report states that a fetus "cannot feel pain until at least the third trimester". However Dr. K.S. Anand, the world's foremost authority on research into pain perception in fetal and neonatal children and whose landmark study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, disagrees. At the Partial Birth Abortion hearings in the Southern District of New York in 2004, Dr. Anand testified that "the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain by 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children." His testimony can be found here.

 

Dr. Paul Ranalli, a Toronto Neurologist, in a public information meeting in Toronto, Canada in October 2008, sponsored by The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, also presented compelling evidence that fetal pain can be felt by 20 weeks and possibly earlier. I challenge the reader to listen to Dr. Ranalli's presentation and not have serious doubts about the "no pain until the third trimester" assertion.

Third, the report states "there is no evidence to suggest that women who have abortions experience any more or less sadness and regret than women who complete an unwanted pregnancy". They cite the American Psychological Association (APA) as one source. However Andrea Mrozek, manager of research and communications at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, details in a recent report that the APA research was flawed.
Here is additional research of the after affects of abortion here and here.

Some may say, "some of that research is biased". The same can and should be said of Pro-Can's evidence. That's why it's so important if there's the slightest possibility of the ABC link; or of severe psychological and physical health risks; or that her unborn child would suffer extreme pain during that abortion–that a pregnant woman see all the evidence, not just the "pro-choice" evidence. It's called informed consent. (Unfortunately Canada does not have informed consent laws for abortion.)

Canada has numerous abortion clinics, hospitals and Planned Parenthood organizations, to provide or refer for abortion services. That's ample pro-choice "help". Women want and deserve something other than abortion clinics. CPCs are the only concrete something else Canada has at the moment for women in crisis pregnancy situations. They provide information on abortions; they just won't provide or refer for the actual abortions. What they do provide, is support and information to help women make an informed decision in a nonjudgmental and loving way.

Finally, what about some of those Christians who work at CPCs? Here's what Pro-Can says in their newsletter about pro-life Christians: their "opposition to abortion comes primarily from religious justifications for oppressing women"; their "views seem small-minded, uninformed, sexist, and cruel"; they are "expressing disrespect and contempt for women." (Read more of Pro-Can's "commentary" and decide its credibility for yourself here and here.)

Nobody is asking Pro-Can to believe in Christ--but it's none of their business if others do. This is one of Canada's most precious rights. It's called freedom of religion and it is protected under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are no legal restrictions on abortion in Canada; no medical reason required; all paid for by taxpayers. Canada does not legally protect its most defenceless and vulnerable citizens. But if a woman decides to have her baby or if she's not sure yet what she wants to do, she can turn to a Crisis Pregnancy Centre for support and information she will not obtain at an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood or Pro-Can.

Yes, we must beware organizations that mistreat and deceive women by giving them misinformation. This is why we must support a woman's choice of visiting and using crisis pregnancy centres.

Don't let the numbers fool you

It has been revealed that abortion complication rates are much higher than the pro-abortions keep telling us.

And this comes from Echo, who, as I have stated before, is not pro-life.

Echo also wants more access to late-term abortions.

And as I have stated before, Echo is completely funded by Ontario tax dollars.

This report says that hospital abortions are safe, yet Echo's own numbers show that short-term complication rates are higher then the common figure always stated, which is about 1%.

For instance, in Joyce Arthur's report attacking crisis Pregnancy Centres, Exposing crisis pregnancy centres in BC, we were told that:
"complication risk still less than 1%" and "Less than one in 100 abortions result in serious complications"

And in this other Echo report:
"Abortion service provision is safe with less than 1% complication rate".

But Echo's own numbers contradict this.

So let's look at what this current report, Induced Abortion in Ontario: Case Scenarios, actually tells us about complication rates.

On page 14, I refer the reader to:
Table 7. Hospital Abortion Outcomes (2002/03 to 2008/09) for 98,483 abortions

The chart reveals short-term complication percentages (1), and they are not less than 1%.

In fact, 6.95% of the 96,859 women who had "same day" hospital abortions had complications (and were readmitted as inpatients: .91%; to same day surgery: .59% ; to the emergency department: 5.45%)

and

7.70% of 1,624 women who had "in patient" hospital abortions had complications (and were readmitted as inpatients: 1.91%; to same day surgery 1.05%; to the emergency department 4.74%).

Then on Page 20, I refer the reader to this:
“According to the hospital survey data, 35 of the 94 general hospitals responding (79% response rate; 94/119 Ontario general hospitals) performed abortions. However of these 35, only 16 reported providing second trimester abortions and all were in larger urban areas. Of these 16, only 13 performed abortions beyond 19 weeks. According to hospital survey data, later stage abortions are only provided for medical reasons, including for a non-viable foetus. Hospital survey data (12/13 hospitals) shows that the gestational limit for these hospitals is 20 weeks (3 hospitals); 21 weeks (1 hospital); 21.5 (1 hospital); 22 (2 hospitals); 23 (1 hospital) 23.50 (2 hospitals) and 24 (2 hospitals).”

Notice the use of the word “only”. “Only” implies that not many hospitals perform second trimester abortions.

Yet fully 16 hospitals do provide second trimester abortions.

And of these 16 hospitals:

3 hospitals do abortions up to 20 weeks
1 hospital does abortions up to 21 weeks
1 hospital does abortions up to 21.5 weeks
2 hospitals do abortions up to 22 weeks
1 hospital does abortions up to 23 weeks
2 hospital does abortions up to 23.5 weeks
2 hospitals do abortions up to 24 weeks

And this statement:
“According to the hospital survey data, later stage abortions are only performed for medical reasons, including for a nonviable fetus."

What medical reasons are we talking about? And how many were done for a nonviable fetus? How many were done for other reasons? Why isn't that information provided? Does Echo have something to hide?

On Page 20, I refer the reader to:
Table 5. Second Trimester (Gestational Age > 12 Weeks) Hospital Abortion Outcomes (2002/03 to 2008/09) for 16,446 procedures

Again, let's look at the percentages:

8.05% of women who had "same day" hospital abortions after 12 weeks had complications (and were readmitted as inpatients: 1.52%; to same day surgery: .42%; to the emergency department: 6.11%)

and

7.48% of women who had "in patient" hospital abortions after 12 weeks had complications (and were readmitted as inpatients: 1.60%; to same day surgery: 1.07%; to the emergency department: 4.81%)

Complication rates much higher that we thought; more access to late-term abortions. Is this what Ontarians really want?

(1) Short-Term Complications: "Using administrative health data, we examined short-term abortion complications. For the purposes of this analysis, any visit to an Emergency Department (ED) or hospital within 14 days of the procedure was counted as a complication, regardless of the reason for the visit.")

Mr. Harper must support the abortion debate

Mr. Harper is between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, he has stated many times that he does not support re-opening the abortion debate.

On the other, there are many disturbing signs regarding pro-life advocacy, and freedom of speech issues surrounding abortion.

First, University students are being threatened with expulsion from the University of Calgary for displaying pictures that show what abortion is.

This is not an isolated incident. Similar attacks on freedom of speech are occurring across the nation, including McGill, the University of Ottawa, University of Victoria, York University and others.

In fact, these occurrences are so disturbing, that even the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, a self proclaimed pro-choice organization, is defending the University of Victoria and their right to pro-life advocacy.

BCCLA President Robert Holmes stated in a press release in February 2010:
"Public money should not be used to suppress free speech. A university and student society that target and suppress one set of views on a matter of public debate while smugly asking for more public funds and for the continuation of a law forcing all students to fund the student society commit an affront to democracy."

Second, pro-life caucus chair, MP Rod Bruinooge, introduced a private member's bill last week, called Bill C-510 or "Roxanne's Law,". This bill seeks to protect women from coercive abortions. The Prime Minister's office has stated that the government will not support the bill.

Third, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada have come out strongly opposing Bill C-510 to the point of actually suggesting the criminalization of pro-life activities. Coordinator Joyce Arthur stated:
"The entire anti-choice movement has been trying to force women into pregnancy and motherhood for decades, by working to outlaw or restrict abortion. Perhaps we need to protect women from this coercion by criminalizing anti-choice activism!"

Fourth, I learned through Access to Freedom Information this year, that Arthur's other extreme pro-abortion group, the Pro-Choice Action Network, received a $27,400 grant to write an extremely vitriolic report, discrediting and condemning Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC.

The report attacks these CPCs by using innuendo, anonymous sources and pro-abortion biased research. I also learned that Crisis Pregnancy Centres have never received government funding.

Why would our government fund extreme pro-choice propaganda but not fund groups that help women keep their child or put it up for adoption?

Finally, and this is old news but a crucial fact nonetheless: since the 1988 Morgentaler decision we have had no protection whatsoever for the unborn; a woman in Canada can have an abortion legally up until the moment of birth, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

What these events tell us, is that without debate, we are in fact promoting abortion.

Yet polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians want at least some protection for the unborn. As recently as March 2010, a survey done for the Manning Centre for Building Democracy by Harris Decima showed that 60% of those surveyed strongly agreed that abortion is morally wrong.

Even the judges in the Morgentaler decision agreed that protection of the fetus was a valid objective and said it was up to Parliament to do this. Parliament never has.

It shouldn't matter where one stands in the debate, whether pro-choice or pro-life. In a democratic country, surely we can all agree that debate and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of our shared values. No subject should ever be taboo.

Canada has no abortion laws to protect the unborn; abortion advocates want to criminalize pro-life activities; the Universities want to shut down all pro-life debate and free speech on campuses; tax dollars pay for pro-abortion evangelism.

Mr. Harper is in a unique position as our duly elected Prime Minister and holds enormous power and authority in this country. He may not fully realize the influence he has had on the abortion debate but these signs are very troubling.

I am not calling for Mr. Harper to support or oppose abortion. I am asking him to tell the country that he supports debate on all topics including abortion.

"pregnancy support groups" vs "crisis pregnancy centres"

In this Winnipeg Free Press article, Abortion pressure target of bill, Adam Wazny writes about Rod Bruinooge's 'Roxanne's Law,' that would make it a criminal offence for anyone to coerce a woman to terminate her pregnancy.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/abortion-pressure-target-of-bill-90919469.html

Wazny got comments from Joyce Arthur and he states:
"Arthur maintains the bill steps on the toes of a successful system that's already in place and undermines the good work pregnancy support groups do. Counsellors at clinics are on the front-lines educating people on the rights of the woman, outlining the choices they have and how the decision to see the pregnancy to term is theirs and theirs alone."

I am confused where Arthur says she supports "pregnancy support groups". Is this the same as "crisis pregnancy centres"? I doubt it, because as I have written previously, Arthur isn't very fond of crisis pregnancy centres. She calls CPCs, "fake clinics", "anti-choice Christian ministries", and warns women to "beware" CPCs because they "deceive" women.
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf

On Arthur's application form for SWC funding, she wrote that one of the goals of the report was to:
"Promote and/or establish, feminist-based options for women, i.e., pro-choice options counseling and post-abortion counseling services and by doing so: enable women to access appropriate health and social services, enhance the effectiveness of feminist based organizations and agencies in regards to women's reproductive health and rights...”

Yes, I'm quite sure that Arthur hasn't had a change of heart about CPCs.

So I'm left wondering. What does Arthur mean by "pregnancy support groups". Could she be referring to those counsellors, who work at those clinics, which make abortion their business--you know abortion clinics?

If so, I'm really not sure a woman looking for "pregnancy support" would be wise to get counseling at an abortion clinic. I think she might come out not pregnant anymore.

Status of Women Canada pays extreme group to discredit CPCs

In January 2009, the uber-feminist Pro-Choice Action Network, (Pro-Can) wrote a very nasty and very biased report called "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC": http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf

In January 2010, I argued that we should applaud and support these CPCs, not ridicule and deride them: http://www.lifenews.com/int1440.html

Even though there are tons of reasons why Canadians should support Crisis Pregnancy Centres, I have learned an even more scandalous piece of information about Pro-Can and their sorry report.

By way of Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests to Status of Women Canada (SWC), I found out that this extreme radical group received funding from SWC to the tune of $27,400 to write this abortion manifesto. I also learned that SWC has never given any funding to CPCs.

And there's more.

First, on Pro-Can's Application for funding, under "Goals and Objectives" appears this gem:

``[the goal of this project is to] ..publicly expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs...and by doing so, work to mitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women...work to promote institutional change by ensuring that health organizations such as hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices do not inappropriately refer women to CPC's, and instead have feminist-based alternatives to which they can refer women."

CPCs are clearly not anti-women or anti-feminist. And please don't tell me that Canadians expect our doctors to refer pregnant women to abortion clinics ``instead`` of CPCs. How outrageous is that?

Second, funding was supposedly provided because there was a "public education" component to the grant. A report that demeans and attacks crisis pregnancy centres, based on biased research can hardly be considered "public education".

Third, Pro-Can never publicly acknowledged the funding they received. Yet, on their Application form, under the heading "Declaration and Undertaking" the applicant clearly makes the following declaration:

"I am authorized by the organization to sign this application. I am taking responsibility to ensure that the organization agrees to the following declaration and undertaking...The organization agrees to publicly acknowledge any financial or other assistance provided by SWC".

Fourth, in SWC's Recommendation for Approval under "If Applicable, how does this initiative link to government wide priorities and international commitments" is the following very disturbing statements:

"As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. V. Morgentaler (1988), under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, women have the right to therapeutic abortions but when crisis pregnancy centres disseminate misinformation to pregnant women, they in effect circumscribe women's full Charter rights. Through this initiative, the government of Canada is fulfilling its court ascribed duty to ensure women have full reproductive choice by informing the public of the diversity of perspectives on abortion."

As everyone knows, the Morgenatler ruling only struck down the existing abortion law; it never granted a "full Charter right" to abortion. So funding to Pro-Can was recommended based on a false premise.

If CPCs save lives, and abortion destroys lives; why did our government fund these radical feminists, but not crisis pregnancy centres?

That, my friend, is the $27,400 question.