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

Joyce Arthur's Pro-Can grant: an investigation, II

(This is the second part of an analysis done on Joyce Arthur's "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy centres" published in the January/February 2013 LifeCanada Journal. Part one was published in the November/December 2012 LifeCanada Journal.)

Fourth. In the paperwork I received from the access request, I noticed that the word "Exposing" was used interchangeably with the word "Examining".

On three of the documents in the package, the title of the report say "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres" (the 10 page funding proposal, the letter from the Minister Liza Frulla congratulating Ms. Arthur on her grant, and in an email from Ms. Arthur to SWC).

On four documents, the title reads "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres" (the signed agreement, a follow up letter from the program office right after Ms. Frulla's letter, SWC's final report, SWC's "closeout assessment").

The word "Examining" is a far more innocuous word than "Exposing". (The final published report was also called "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres".)

When I asked SWC about this discrepancy, they had no explanation. So what was going on here? As the request for funding weaved its way through the process, is it possible that SWC thought they were agreeing to a much less scandalous document that what in fact was finally produced?

Fifth. Pro-Can never publicly acknowledged the funding they received, which was a condition of receiving funding. Joyce Arthur clearly signs the following declaration in the "Application":
"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".

When I questioned SWC on this, their response was:
“It is true that there is no mention of SWC as the funder for this initiative in the Research Report on the website. However, a note on the website states that as of January 31, 2009, “the Pro-Choice Action Network has ceased operations except for our website”, so we will not be following up with them.” (5)

Pro-Can apparently ceased operations the same month the report was released. Even though Pro-Can had supposedly ceased operations, their web-site, which includes the report, is still very much active, and is still very much active even today. And SWC, by their own admission, did nothing to insist that Pro-Can adhere to the promise they made to publicly acknowledge funding from SWC.

Sixth. 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 rationale for the report:
"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."
(It is unclear who wrote this paragraph. The document itself was signed by SWC.)

The Morgentaler ruling only struck down the existing abortion law for procedural reasons; it never recognized a "Charter right" to abortion. There was no “court ascribed duty” for the government of Canada to “ensure women have full reproductive choice.” In fact, the court made it clear that the government had an interest in the protection of the fetus and that it was up to Parliament to bring forward a new law that would balance the interests of both mother and child.

And finally, here is the congratulatory letter from Minister of Canadian; Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Liza Frulla.

"Dear Ms. Arthur;

I am pleased to inform you that I have approved a grant in the amount of $27,400 from the Women's Program for your initiative "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres." A cheque in the amount of $25,400, which represents the first payment of this funding, is enclosed.

As Minister responsible for Status of Women, I know that the Women's Program plays a vital role in supporting the work of women's and other equality-seeking organizations to remove barriers to women's full participation in Canadian, society. I recognize the critical part that organizations such as yours play in achieving this goal.

Indeed, it 's only by working together, by forming partnerships between this government and equality-seeking groups working at the local, provincial and national levels, that we will realize our shared goal of gender equality. I welcome the opportunity to support your group's role in this collaborative process.

I am confident that the results achieved through your initiative will help us demonstrate the progress we are making in advancing women's equality in our society.

In closing, I would like to congratulate you, the members of your organization and all the volunteers who will assist you in undertaking this initiative. Best wishes for continued success n your endeavours.

Sincerely,
Liza Frulla, P.C., M.P."

This report should never have been written. The fact that it was also funded by tax payers, should never have been allowed to happen.

Footnotes:
(1) Access to Information request received from status of Women Canada (SWC) in 2009
(2) http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/29/51748.htm
(3) http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf
(4) http://www.viwomensclinic.ca/YourDecision.aspx
(5) Email correspondence with SWC in 2010

Here is a list of the different documents I received, all of which formed the packaged released under the ATIP:
a) "Application" signed by Joyce Arthur. Nine pages, plus a ten page Project Funding Proposal (used "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres") and four other pages of information
b) An email from SWC to Joyce Arthur
c) "Recommendation for Approval" (nine pages signed by SWC)
d) Letter from Minister Frulla to Joyce Arthur (used "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres")
e) Letter from SWC to Joyce Arthur, as a follow up to the Minister's letter (used "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres")
f) "Approved Budget Expenditures"
g) Two page contract detailing project, signed by Joyce Arthur (used "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres")
h) email from Joyce Arthur to SWC (used "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres"
i) "Final report" six pages signed by Joyce Arthur (used "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres")
j) "Closeout assessment" six pages Signed by SWC (used "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres")

Joyce Arthur's Pro-Can grant: an investigation

(Part one below appeared in the November/December 2012 issue of LifeCanada Journal)

This is part one of a two-part analysis of the $27,400 grant Joyce Arthur received in 2009 for writing her report "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British ColumbiaIn 2009 Joyce Arthur wrote a report criticizing crisis pregnancy centres in British Columbia. The next issue will contain part two. The purpose of the report was 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." (1)

In 2010, through an Access to Information request it was revealed that Ms. Arthur and her group, Pro-Choice Action Network (Pro-Can) received $27,400 from Status of Women Canada (SWC) to write this "Expose".

Then On October 29, 2012 we learned that The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society sued Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Can in Supreme Court.

The complaint states in part:
"The report has been widely read and disseminated online and republished by other organizations and used in media coverage, including a three-part investigative series by CTV News in Vancouver...The results of the harm done to the plaintiffs' reputation have included, inter alia, adverse impacts on the plaintiffs' relationships with, and ability to engage in its non-profit and funding activities in respect of, prospective clients, donors, and community partners," (2)

For anyone who has read the report (3), it is difficult to imagine how it ever received government funding at all. But it did. What happened? How did tax dollars end up going to an extremist organizations such as Pro-Can?

First. The funds were granted under the Women's Program at SWC. One of the goals to this program is to achieve "social justice". This was part of the pitch that Pro-Can used in order to get funding, and told us the Implications of not receiving this funding:
“Without funding from SWC, the organization will probably not be able to carry out this initiative. As a result, CPC's would be able to continue to operate by employing deceptive and misleading service delivery tactics and many more pregnant women, especially those most marginalized, would continue to have their reproductive rights eroded because their would be no critical awareness of what is happening. Ergo, SWC may not be able to fulfil its commitment of ensuring social justice for all women in Canada.” (1)

A definition of social justice from Wikipedia:
"A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being."

How does demeaning and criticizing those organizations who support women who choose to keep their baby and not abort it--recognize the dignity of every human being? It doesn't.

Second. It is clear from the documentation that Pro-Can had already concluded--without actually having done their so-called research and report--that PCs were already deceiving and misleading women.

One example is that the original proposal had a goal that CPCs become marginalized:
”...CPC's switch their focus to helping women who want to have babies instead of stopping women from having abortions—or if they continue doing the latter, they become more marginalized in their communities...”

So why did they need grant money then, for research that was already a foregone conclusion?

Third, funding. Of the $27,400 grant, $8,125 went to office expenses, etc. The remainder $19,275 went to salaries, as well as to hiring a family doctor and a medical researcher to discredit material published by CPC's. Specifically, "to go through the Volunteer Training Manual for the Crisis Pregnancy Centre Ministry, and identify and refute any medical errors or scientific distortions. They produced a detailed report critiquing and refuting many aspects of the manual, and providing support from the scientific literature. There were serious inaccuracies and distortions in many areas. These errors are taught to the counsellors, who pass them on to unsuspecting women." (3)

The doctor was Dr. Konia Trouton a Family Physician from Vancouver Island Women’s Clinic. The website from this doctor's clinic posts these warnings to women about CPCs:
"A word of caution: if you surf the net you will come across many anti-abortion websites that have frightening and inaccurate information about abortion. The resources and links page on this website has a list of pro-choice organizations that are good sources of information. Also beware of "CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES". Antichoice groups sometimes set up offices, distress centres, phone lines or 'clinics' that pretend to help pregnant women with information and pregnancy tests. Many of these groups try to influence vulnerable women to continue their pregnancy by frightening them. Some will say anything to have you keep your pregnancy. Not all of their information about gestational development, health risks and after-effects of abortion is correct." (4)

This clinic performs abortions--up to 20 weeks gestation I might add--for which the clinic is obviously well paid. Isn't this a conflict of interest, when a doctor who receives money for the abortions she performs, to then scare women away from CPCs?

And did Ms. Arthur receive any actual funds from abortion clinics to help with this project? It is unclear. However her proposal stated this:
"For this project we would work closely with abortion clinics. We would also liaise with women's centres across BC, family planning clinics (e.g. Options for Sexual health clinics)...we have no financial partners for this project, but we do plan to ask the abortion clinics to contribute funds for expenses...”

(Part two continued in next issue of the Journal)

Footnotes
(1) Access to Information request received from Status of Women Canada (SWC) in 2009
(2) http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/29/51748.htm
(3) http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf
(4) http://www.viwomensclinic.ca/YourDecision.aspx

Joyce Arthur sued

Joyce Arthur is being sued:
"The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society sued Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Choice Action Network, in B.C. Supreme Court.

They claims defendants defamed them in a 2009 report, "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia...

...The report has been widely read and disseminated online and republished by other organizations and used in media coverage, including a three-part investigative series by CTV News in Vancouver...

..."The results of the harm done to the plaintiffs' reputation have included, inter alia, adverse impacts on the plaintiffs' relationships with, and ability to engage in its non-profit and funding activities in respect of, prospective clients, donors, and community partners," the complaint states."

I wrote about that report in LifeNews and here and here after I learned through an Access to Information request that Pro-Can had received $27,400 to write that so-called report.

Should be interesting.

Promotion of abortion

During a recent posting of mine, Adoption instead of abortion, commenter "Ginny" said:
"pro-choice groups aren't opposed to women being informed”.

I disagree.

You see, "pro-choice" groups only selectively inform women and ignore any evidence that they don't like. Evidence that might make women think twice about having an abortion. Evidence that shows a link between abortion and breast cancer. Evidence that shows a fetus can suffer excruciating pain during an abortion. Evidence of the psychological and physical harm done to women from abortion. “Pro-choice” people debunk this evidence and tell women that they are being lied to, and that they are being misinformed, and deceived.

I've discussed this before, but it obviously bears repeating. Let’s start with the evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer (ABC). In 2003, the National Cancer Institute conference concluded there was no ABC link. But one participant at that conference, Dr. Joel Brind (Ph.D., Professor, Human Biology and Endocrinology) disagreed. He said he was:
"convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real, independent, positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk."

Dr. Brind's report is here.

Other studies that support the ABC link here.

In fact one of the researchers and organizers of that conference, Dr. Louise Brinton, reversed her position on the ABC link in January 09.

The Pro-choice Action Network reported in their so-called "expose" on crisis pregnancy centres that a fetus:
"cannot feel pain until at least the third trimester".

But there is lots of evidence that a fetus does in fact, feel pain at 20 weeks gestation and even before that. Dr. K.S. Anand is a world authority on research into pain perception in fetal and neonatal children. His study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987. 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."

Dr. Anand's testimony is 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 agrees with Dr. Anand. Dr. Ranalli's talk is quite compelling--I suggest you listen to it and make your own conclusions on when a fetus feels pain here.

Pro-Can’s report also says:
"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".

The report cites the American Psychological Association (APA) as one source. Andrea Mrozek, manager of research and communications at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, explains here why the APA research was flawed.

And here’s more research of the after affects of abortion here and here.

So to conclude, many “pro-choice” people are opposed to women being informed of all the information that would actually enable them to make a truly informed decision regarding having an abortion or not. Because if women were "informed" of this evidence, they might even change their minds and not have that abortion. And this would make a dent in the goal of the the pro-abortions’ continual and relentless promotion of abortion.

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.