ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 4

So what evidence did I find of "misinformation" from Pregnancy Care Centres in this ATIP? Well, none so far. (I've only looked at the the second half of the ATIP).

On page 73 we have an example of "misinformation" provided by Joyce Arthur. This can be safely ignored as Arthur's evidence of Pregnancy Care centres misinformation has been refuted many times.

Then there is this statement by the NDP; can also be safely ignored because it's just the NDP parroting Joyce Arthur.

Pages 199-282 are US legal cases on "misinformation".  

So there are lots of pages of attempts to justify "misinformation". There are lots of redacted information. The government is clearly looking for reasons (and doing cartwheels) to get ammunition to persecute and target pregnancy care centres for "misinformation". But other than Joyce Arthur and NDP MPP Leah Gazan's claims of misinformation, I could not find any actual evidence or proof of Canada's pregnancy care centres indulging in "misinformation".

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 3

Excerpts from letters sent to Chrystia Freeland regarding Pregnancy Care Centres. There is a lot more thought and common sense put into these letters than what was put into Justin Trudeau's decision to go after pro-life charities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My first concern is that the Liberal government appears to demonstrate prejudice and bias in targeting pregnancy care centers as examples of providing dishonest counselling regarding women's rights and choices for a crisis pregnancy.

Secondly, you disregard the tremendous volunteer support crisis pregnancy centers provide women in order to offer real choice, with complete information about these choices and the impact they may have on a woman's life.

Finally, the proposed amendment demonstrates biased, values-based influence by a government that infringes on my values and right to choose which charities I wish to support. 

But just who will determine, on the government's behalf, what information is deemed dishonest and what information is evidence-based and accurate? What scientific and/or legal experts will be engaged, without bias? Why have you only targeted 'anti-abortion' charities and said nothing that states with equal clarity that abortion providers will face the same scrutiny? Can you point to any published guide (such as the one Pregnancy Care provides) that abortion providers give to every woman who seeks an abortion, to be certain these women fully understand their options?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are concerned, however, that contrary to Charter protections of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, organizations may be singled out simply because they hold particular underlying beliefs about abortion and when life begins.

There is a lack of data about what specific problem or problems this change is intended to address. We ask that before any process of legislative or regulatory change is undertaken, there is research, clarification and public communication about the specific problems that are spurring the change. The need for new policy or legislation should be clearly stated and based on evidence.

Part of clarifying the problem to be addressed includes identifying the gaps in the existing system. New legislation or regulation is only needed if the current system is inadequate or unable to address the problem. The CRA has robust regulatory and compliance measures to address issues in the charitable sector. These measures focus on education and bringing charities into compliance as a starting position. The mandate letter suggests a troubling shift away from an education and compliance-first approach. It is even more disturbing that such a change seems under consideration only for certain kinds of charities. We question what the justification could be for this significant change in approach.

Further, the terms in the mandate letter raise significant concerns about the Charter-compliance of such an initiative. The phrase "anti-abortion organizations" suggests that groups could be singled out for additional scrutiny and possible denial of charitable status simply on the basis of their beliefs about when life begins. The qualifier of "dishonest counseling" offers little assistance as it is neither defined nor explained. Rather, it seems very subjective and could make the government the arbiter of acceptable opinion or belief.

We are very concerned that participation in the public square and a level playing field with respect to government programs could be subject to a values test.

We ask that any policy or legislative changes follow the principles of procedural fairness and consistency. We ask that you consider carefully compliance with Charter protections of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression.

Please be careful not to politicize the charitable sector. Canada has a diverse charitable sector that is permitted to hold opinions and views that differ from the government. If charitable status were to depend on alignment with the policy of any particular government, all charities - and Canada's vibrant charitable sector - would be at risk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What exactly is the definition of “dishonest counseling” as expressed by Prime Minister Trudeau? Does Mr. Trudeau consider ALL pregnancy counseling OTHER THAN abortion counseling as “dishonest”?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Charter guarantees freedom of conscience, religious belief, and expression. No legitimate charity that operates with integrity should be called ‘dishonest’ because it disagrees with the government’s ideology. What are the criteria for the government’s definition of ‘dishonest counseling’? Is the pro-life position viewed as being ‘dishonest’?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 2

The exchange below between Leah Gazan and Chrystia Freeland also appeared in my ATIP to Finance. Gazan who is an NDP MPP asks Freeland about the removal of charitable funding from anti-abortion charities. I especially appreciate this part of her question that says:

(b) what stakeholders and interested parties have government representatives met with since September 21, 2021; and (c) on what dates were the meetings in (b) held?

True to form for this currently prorogued government, Freeland doesn't answer the question. In fact Freeland's answer to MPP Gazan is the same response she has given to people who write to her.

And now Ms. Freeland is running for the leadership of the Liberal party. Yikes.

Next we have Diane Lebouthillier Minister of National Revenue unable to answer the question either. At least she says she can't answer the question. As we all know now, they have changed their tactic of witch hunting pro-life charities, into instead Protecting reproductive freedom by preventing abuse of charitable status. 

Concerns have been raised that some registered charities that offer reproductive health services to women, including pregnancy options counselling, may be spreading misinformation by presenting themselves as neutral, full-service pregnancy support service organizations when they are in fact anti-choice organizations that push women away from accessing the reproductive care of their choice. By concealing the true nature of their services, these anti-choice organizations are restricting the rights of vulnerable pregnant women to choose the reproductive care appropriate to them and their circumstances.

"Concerns... misinformation...concealing". No proof. No evidence. Just false allegations based on nothing. Again. 

Question No.874—

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to the commitment in the Liberal Party’s 2021 election platform to no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations, such as crisis pregnancy centres: (a) what consultation processes has the government established to define an anti-abortion organization; (b) what stakeholders and interested parties have government representatives met with since September 21, 2021; and (c) on what dates were the meetings in (b) held?

Links & Sharing

Question No.874—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

December 2nd, 2022 / 12:20 p.m.

University—RosedaleOntario

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act does not define the concept of charity but relies on the common law definition. Under the common law, charitable purposes fall under one of four categories: relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community in a way the courts have determined to be charitable, for example, the protection of the environment or the promotion of health.

Canadian tax incentives for charitable donations are considered to be amongst the most generous in the world. Given this generosity and other tax privileges provided to charities, organizations that choose to register as charities are required to follow a particular set of rules set out in the Income Tax Act. These rules are primarily designed to ensure that donated funds are used for charitable purposes, protecting public trust in the charitable sector as a whole.

All registered charities are required to ensure that the information that they provide is accurate and evidence-based, and are prohibited from disseminating information that is false or misleading.

Our government remains committed to no longer provide charity status to anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of a pregnancy.

Links & Sharing

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to the charitable status of anti-abortion organizations in Canada, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year, since 2015-16: (a) how does the government define what an anti-abortion organization is; and (b) how many organizations have received or maintained charitable status while meeting the definition in (a)?

Links & Sharing

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-MadeleineQuébec

Liberal

Diane Lebouthillier Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, as the federal regulator of registered charities, the CRA is responsible for making sure charities comply with the requirements of the Income Tax Act and common law. While the CRA is responsible for administering policy once implemented, it is not the CRA’s role to develop tax policy. As such, while the CRA is prepared to administer any new rules that are implemented and to provide relevant guidance to the charitable sector, the CRA is currently unable to respond in the manner requested.

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 1

I recently (finally) received the response to my ATIP to Finance regarding Pregnancy Care Centres. There are a lot of pages, much of which has been redacted.

I will be posting some of the information I received in the upcoming days, including some of the letters people wrote to Minister Chrystia Freeland. 

It seems that when people wrote followup emails to the Minister, they did not receive a reply. These two letters below are both just such follow up letters. I bold some of the important questions that were not answered by Ms Freeland.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Friday, January 13, 2023 2:22 PM Chrystia Freeland P. Dowdall

Re: 009343 - your correspondence of October 26, 2022

Dear Ms. DaSilva,

Thank you for your thorough response. I ask that these thoughts also be taken into account:

since the Liberal government is committed to women's reproductive health and women's rights to be accurately informed about "options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy since in this regard, pregnancy care centers are negatively targeted in the Liberals platform, 'Forward For Everyone' and yet Pregnancy Care Canada has possibly one of the most comprehensive brochures to provide clients with information regarding options in a crisis pregnancy; since the government believes it is it's right to determine which women's health providers receive my tax dollars (such as abortion providers), and which may not receive my donations, (or I cannot claim these donations on my taxes), seriously contradicting your statement that the government "does so while respecting Canadians' right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and religion under the Charter"; then I ask to what high degree does the government hold accountable abortion providers with regards to breadth and accuracy of information provided to women about "options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy"? Would any abortion provider have a brochure to offer women similar to that provided by Pregnancy Care Canada? Would the government require such information be provided to women seeking abortions? Why or why not?

I realize that health care largely comes under the province's purvey, but as the federal government is policing pregnancy care centers, then surely they will just as carefully scrutinize abortion providers, to be sure that these facilities are providing thorough and accurate advice.

Is this the intention of the Liberal government? Why or why not? It is not strictly a health question, but also is a finance issue, in the same way that tax donations are a finance issue. I most certainly agree with the Liberal government that those who provide for women's reproductive choices should be providing thorough, and accurate information.

Sincerely,

Sent from my iPad

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:

Tuesday, October 18, 2022 4:14 PM Chrystia Freeland

008738 (xref: 008446) - Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre

Thank you for your reply to my recent letter.

There is one concern I have with regards to your reply. You indicate that "All registered charities are required to ensure that the information that they provide is accurate and evidence-based, and are prohibited from disseminating information that is false or misleading. These requirements apply equally to registered charities that provide reproductive health services to Canadians."

What proof does the Federal Government have that Pregnancy Centres provide false or misleading information? I am not aware of any court case or any documented proof that Pregnancy Centres mislead or provide false information.

I look forward to receiving your reply. Thank you.

Finance committee biased against pro-life charities

Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights said this in their submission for the PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATIONS IN ADVANCE OF THE 2025 BUDGET: 

'In Canada, anti-abortion organizations use misleading information in an attempt to dissuade people from seeking safe abortion and some politicians are promoting disinformation regarding sexuality education and gender-affirming care.' 

This misinformation and disinformation from ACSHR resulted in this recommendation from the Report of the Standing Committee on Finance:

'Recommendation 429: No longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.'

ACSHR makes unproven and already debunked allegations about pro-life charities, and this results in the Standing Committee on Finance recommending that pro-life charities lose their charitable status. Is this for real? Did the committee verify these allegations? Did they do any checking at all on the validity of these claims? Because if they did they would have learned that any disinformation and misinformation comes from the pro-abortion side of the divide.

Unbelievably, this committee is willing to recommend that an entire sector of charities lose their charitable status, based on untruths. These falsehoods come from an organization that has received millions of dollars in government grants, all the while Pro-life charities receive no government grants.

And should a charity that receives millions, be allowed to lobby the government to remove the charitable status from another charity? Is this ethical? Or are ethics not important anymore?

Removing the charitable status from pro-life organizations, based on unproven allegations from another charity, who themselves receive millions in government funding, and who have a long history of attacking pro-life groups with the help of these government grants, should bear some pretty serious scrutiny. But no, pro-life people and charities have endured bias from the pro-abortions and this Liberal government for nine long years.

Why aren't abortion clinics called out for misinformation?

This is a huge double standard. Pro-abortion organizations get away with misinformation by not being honest about what an abortion actually is. They are masters of double-speak.

So once again I wrote to Chrystia Freeland.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Minister Freeland,

My letter below was sent to you almost two years ago. I still have not received a reply from you.

There has been a lot in the news lately about Pregnancy Care Centres and how your government wants them to explicitly say they don't offer abortions and that they spread misinformation. 

I would like to know if you will also investigate pro-choice charities and their misinformation tactics? I have given you examples in my letter below and I can assure you that you will find many more examples if you cared to look for them. 

To single out just one type of charity for this aggressive treatment based on absolutely no evidence, especially since these charities receive virtually no government funding at all, appears to be quite an obvious double standard. In fact one would think that the pro-choice charities which do receive millions and millions of dollars in grant money should be scrutinized a lot more.

Surely you see the problem here Minister?

I look forward to hearing back from you soon. 

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below I summarize the misinformation that I detailed in my first letter to Chrystia Freeland, a letter that she never answered. And now we learn that the pro-abortion attack dogs are wreaking their havoc on Pregnancy Care Centres because of alleged 'misinformation'. 

1) DE&E abortion. Pro-abortion description from Vancouver Island Women's Clinic: There is no actual description of the 'procedure'. The word 'procedure' is used 11 times, but what the 'procedure' is, is never explained. They use the word 'tissue' instead of fetus or preborn child or child in the womb. This is misinformation.

Here is an accurate description of a D&E abortion (ie 'procedure'). 'The doctor uses a speculum to open the woman's vagina, making her cervix visible. A tube is inserted into her uterus, by which all amniotic fluid is suctioned out. Using forceps, the fetus is then dismembered and extracted in pieces. After the extraction, suction and curettage ensure that the uterus is completely emptied. An ultrasound is commonly used to confirm that the abortion is complete.' (emphasis added)

2) CARE Program, BC Women's Hospital & Health Centre: Also uses the word 'procedure' and again the 'procedure' is never defined. They use the words 'contents of the uterus' instead of fetus or preborn child or child in the womb. This is misinformation.

3) Options for Sexual health: Again they use the word 'procedure' and 'contents of the uterus'. Ditto above.

Having a 'procedure' to remove 'tissue' is misinformation on a grand scale Chrystia Freeland. Please direct your witch hunt to where it rightly belongs.

This news might terrify you--but it must be told

I hope I do not ruin your weekend with the information I am about to divulge to you. This was not my intention. But you need to know. It is in regard to policies of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is quite distressing, but I think we all need to reflect on how this information could affect its citizens, should the Conservatives ever come to power.

These particulars have been shared by one of Canada's leading organizations. A group who specializes in telling us the truth about these matters. These people have never, ever, been involved in spreading misinformation or disinformation.

Here they have helpfully "paraphrased to make clear the intended or likely meaning" of these shocking Conservative policies that would harm our democracy:

• "Compelling universities to allow anti-choice expression and hate speech on campuses" (Imagine. Allowing pro-life groups the right to their freedom of speech rights, on university campuses no less.)

• "Allowing healthcare workers to refuse to participate in or refer patients for abortion or medical assistance in dying." (Imagine. Not forcing doctors and nurses to kill their patients.)

• "Opposing the right to medical assistance in dying" (Imagine. Actually being against killing people.)

• "Prohibiting research using embryos" (Imagine. Being against using human embryos in research where these tiny humans can be dissected, discarded, or whatever else suits someone's purpose.)

• "Excluding abortion from Canada’s maternal and child health programs abroad."  (Imagine. Being against killing other countries pre-born children.)

• "Condemning sex-selection abortions." (Imagine. Being against the killing of pre-born children who are female.)

• "Amending the human rights code to allow faith-based organizations to discriminate based on their beliefs" (Imagine. Allowing Canadian citizens to practice their freedom of religion rights.)

• "Changing the criteria for Canada Summer Jobs to make anti-choice groups eligible for funding again." (Imagine. Ceasing to discriminate against pro-life people and people of faith in receiving government grants.)

• "Supporting legislation to grant fetal personhood by making it a separate crime to harm or kill a fetus during a crime against a pregnant person." (Imagine. Supporting the enactment of a separate crime when someone kills a wanted pre-born child.)

• Supporting legislation to mandate “life-saving care” and “intensive care” for fetuses born alive after an abortion." (Imagine. Supporting the provision of actual care to a child born alive after an abortion.)

• "Opposing the rights of sex workers and the decriminalization of prostitution." (Imagine. Declaring that "human beings are not objects to be enslaved, bought or sold.")

I hope I haven't unduly shocked you, but please please, take the time to reflect on how these policies would affect our dear Canada. We simply cannot, must not, let these policies ever see the light of day.

Misinformation from pro-choice groups on abortion

Dear Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland,

I would like to speak to you about misinformation. On abortion. From pro-choice charities. From abortion facilities.

I know that you want to investigate pro-life charities. You allege that they "are actively working to spread misinformation about abortion" and that you will amend the income tax act "to make them ineligible for charitable status".

You have not provided any evidence of these allegations against pro-life charities. This is because pro-life charities do not engage in these practices.

Can you please tell me if you will also be investigating pro-choice charities that engage in spreading misinformation to women about abortion? One can't help but notice that you only singled out pro-life groups. Why is that? If investigations go forward, logically, all charities that engage in providing misinformation must be investigated. Focusing on only one sector is discriminatory towards that sector, wouldn't you agree?

To help you get started, I have done some research for you. In particular I've chosen two abortion facilities, and one pro-abortion charity that advocates for abortion. I do a very narrow focus on only second trimester abortion misinformation. These abortions are often D&E (Dilation and evacuation) abortions. As background information, in 2020, there were at least 1,913 of these second trimester dilation and extraction abortions in Canada (based on CIHI data). 

As you can see from the chart, this number only represents those D&E abortions performed in hospitals, and not in clinics and not in Quebec. So there are more of these abortions performed than what CIHI reports. How many more, we do not know.

Here is an accurate description of a D&E abortion.

D&E abortions are completed in two steps on consecutive days:

1. Preparation Stage — Day 1: A pre-abortion ultrasound identifies how far along you are in the pregnancy and reveals the position of the fetus and placenta. Feticide: An injection to induce fetal demise is sometimes given through the woman's abdomen or cervix. This is an elective step taken by 50% of physicians in the US. Antibiotics: A single dose of oral antibiotics is given to prevent infection. Dilation: The cervix is softened and gradually dilated (opened) over a 24-hour period using osmotic dilators. Seaweed stalks (laminaria) or hydrogel rods are used for this purpose as they slowly expand by absorbing the moisture in the woman's cervix. After the placement of the dilators, the woman is free to leave the clinic until her appointment the following day.

2. Evacuation Stage — Day 2: Anesthesia: D&Es are typically performed using a paracervical block (local anesthetic injected into your cervix) and intravenous conscious sedation. Removal of Fetus and Placenta: The doctor uses a speculum to open the woman's vagina, making her cervix visible. A tube is inserted into her uterus, by which all amniotic fluid is suctioned out. Using forceps, the fetus is then dismembered and extracted in pieces. After the extraction, suction and curettage ensure that the uterus is completely emptied. An ultrasound is commonly used to confirm that the abortion is complete. (Emphasis added)

(Notice that the word "fetus" is used three times. Canadian prochoice charities almost never (if ever) use the word fetus when talking about abortions.)

 _________________________________________________________________________

Below are examples of misinformation from pro-choice facilities regarding second trimester abortions. Many of these second trimester abortions would be D&E abortions (many if not all).

1) According to a pro-abortion website, Vancouver Island Women's Clinic performs 

Aspiration or surgical [abortions] up to 23 weeks, 6 days LMP (done in hospital)

This is what the clinic says on their site about these second term abortions.

Surgical abortions are done at the hospital. You will need at least two appointments; one for a consultation visit and the second for the surgical procedure. If your pregnancy is over 14 weeks, you will need to come to the clinic the day before the procedure [notice that this surgical procedure is not described] for laminaria to be inserted into the cervix to soften it overnight.

During the consultation process, you will talk with the nurse and the doctor to review your options, have blood work organized, and discuss a birth control plan. We will answer any questions you have. You will then have an ultrasound and physical examination with the doctor, discuss the procedure [there is no description of the procedure] and sign consents to be booked for the surgery. The procedure [there is no description of the procedure] itself will be booked as a second appointment at the hospital. You must arrive at the hospital 2 hours prior to your procedure. [there is no description of the procedure]

The procedure [there is no description of the procedure] itself takes 5-10 minutes, and then it takes approximately 60 minutes for the recovery. It is usually done under intravenous sedation to relax and sedate you. This type of sedation is safer than a general anesthetic. The cervix is frozen, so that there is minimal pain. Most people are at the hospital for 3-5 hours and you must have someone drive you home. We recommend that someone stay with you overnight due to variable effects from the anesthetic medication. You can expect to feel tired on the day of the procedure. [there is no description of the procedure] Most people can resume their usual activities the next day, unless you do heavy lifting at work.

Complication rates are less than 1% for surgical procedures. [there is no description of the procedure] You are given antibiotics immediately before the procedure [there is no description of the procedure] to minimize the risk of infection. An ultrasound is used during or after the procedure [there is no description of the procedure] to ensure completion, and the tissue is examined [what is this tissue? not explained] before you leave the hospital. There is about 1/100,000 chance of a serious reaction to the medications used or any permanent damage to the uterus. There are no known long-term effects of surgical abortion. Women are able to conceive again and have a normal pregnancy. There are no known problems or consequences with having more than one abortion.

We strongly recommend a check-up 2 weeks following the procedure. [there is no description of the procedure] The doctor will speak with you to review your experience, and you will have a chance to discuss your feelings about the process, and ask any remaining questions about birth control. The check-up can also be done with your own health care provider if you have one.

The word fetus is never used. The procedure is not described. One could easily believe that the procedure doesn't pull anything apart; that a fetus is not involved; that nothing is killed. This is misinformation.

___________________________________________________________________________

2) CARE Program, BC Women's Hospital & Health Centre 

CARE Program provides abortions up to the 25th week of pregnancy.

An abortion after the 12th week of pregnancy (2nd trimester) can involve two to three days of appointments. Depending on how far away you live from Vancouver, you may need to arrange to stay in Vancouver for two to three nights.

Because the pregnancy is more developed after 12 weeks, an additional step is needed to prepare the cervix for the abortion procedure. [there is no description of the procedure] Depending on the number of weeks of the pregnancy, one or two days prior to the abortion you will check in to the clinic, and see the counsellor as in a first trimester abortion.

After signing the Consent Form, you will be given antibiotics, and blood will be drawn to test for Rh factor.

In the procedure room, an ultrasound, and tests for sexually transmitted infections (such as chlamydia and gonorrhea) will be done, after which a small device called a cervical dilator will be placed in the opening of your cervix. Cervical dilators absorb moisture and slowly expand, gently dilating (enlarging) the opening of the cervix over the next 24 hours.

It is important that you are certain of your decision to have an abortion before cervical dilators are inserted. If you change your mind, there is a risk of miscarriage and infection when these are removed without having the abortion done.

On the day of your abortion, you will check in, and a nurse will place a small intravenous tube in your arm (for medication to relieve pain).

Because you have had cervical dilators inserted, your cervix will be prepared for the procedure [there is no description of the procedure], which involves the use of suction and small instruments to empty your uterus [empty the uterus of what, and how?].

After you have rested in the recovery room and when you are ready, you will be able to leave the clinic.

The word fetus is never used. The procedure is not described. One could easily believe that the "procedure" doesn't pull anything apart; that a fetus is not involved; that no fetus is killed. This is misinformation. 

3) Options for Sexual health:

It is a procedure done in a clinic/hospital where the health care provider removes the contents [what are these contents?] of the uterus. In early pregnancy, this is done with aspiration (suction) and usually takes less than 10 minutes. Later in pregnancy, there may be additional steps [what are these additional steps?] in the procedure and it can take longer. 

No description of second trimester abortions. Ironically this abortion information is provided in a section called "the facts", yet no facts on the "procedure" are explained. In fact, there is nothing at all on their site describing second term abortion and / or dilation and extraction abortions. Nothing about fetuses. Nothing about removing limbs from fetuses. Nothing about killing fetuses. Misinformation at its finest.

___________________________________________________________________________

Examples of misinformation from pro-choice groups attacking pro-life charities

Another area of grave concern is when those who promote or perform abortions engage in misinforming women, attacking pro-life charities, making serious unsubstantiated allegations against them.

Two examples.

1) Vancouver Island Women’s Clinic

You may come across many anti-abortion websites that have frightening and inaccurate information about abortion. 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 individuals to continue their pregnancy by frightening them. Some will say anything to have you keep your pregnancy. Their information about gestational development, health risks, and after-effects of abortion may be incorrect. The may also attempt to delay the process, which could lead to a reduction in the number of options you have. If you have any questions or concerns about what you’ve heard or read, please call us and we will help to answer them honestly and without bias. (emphasis added)

No evidence and no proof of these allegations. Misinformation.

2) From Options for Sexual health:

Please note that some organizations that offer pregnancy options counselling, information or decision-making support are pregnancy crisis centers, anti-abortion organizations that spread misinformation about abortion and pressure people into continuing pregnancies. (emphasis added)

No evidence and no proof of these allegations. Misinformation.

Options for Sexual health received provincial funding in 2021 of $1,327,327. They had receipted donations of $84,937, and non-receipted donations of $245,701. 

Wouldn't the donors of Options for Sexual health, as well as governments Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Freeland, want to know about this misinformation they spread?

There is nothing from these pro-choice groups about what a D&E abortion actually does, and how it is performed. Nothing about killing the fetus by removing the limbs one at a time, then crushing the skull and extracting its pieces. The words "fetus", "extract limbs", "killed", etc. are never used. The phrase "empty your uterus" is used. Emptied of what, and emptied how? Not stated. 

All of this is a gross exercise in misinforming women.

I have provided only three examples of misinformation from pro-abortion groups. I can assure you there are many other examples but this letter is already long enough.

I hope Mr. Trudeau that you will investigate all charitable pro-choice groups in Canada and revoke their charitable status, if and when, they spread misinformation to women.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Pro-abortion group misinforms on abortion

I see that the pro-abortions are at it again. They are misinforming Canadians about pregnancy care centres. This disinformation campaign is so bad, that once again, Pregnancy Care Canada had to rebut these fabrications from this pro-abortion group.

(The full rebuttal is reprinted with permission below.)

It's all pretty ironic really. In case I need to remind you, Justin Trudeau wants to remove charitable status from pro-life groups because of his hatred of all things pro-life:

"Meanwhile, anti-choice organizations are actively working to spread misinformation about abortion, putting the health and safety of young people and vulnerable women at risk."

We all know that pro-life groups do no such thing. But here is a case of an organization who actually is spreading misinformation about abortion. And guess what? They received over $100,000 in government funding in the last two years alone.

So Justin Trudeau. Will you please cancel this funding? Now would be a good time.

Pregnancy Care Centres in Canada:  A Necessary Rebuttal

October 2022

Introductions

Pregnancy Care Canada is a non-political, not-for-profit, faith-based, national best practice association for over 80 affiliated pregnancy care centres, at times referred to as crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs). Most but not all pregnancy care centres are affiliated with Pregnancy Care Canada. Our affiliated centres provide a safe environment for a woman to make a pregnancy decision that is fully informed, evidence-based, consistent with her belief system, and free from external pressure. Please meet our team.

Why a Rebuttal?

Normally, we have no interest in responding to false narratives from partisan groups. However, owing to the prominence of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, we feel compelled to respectfully respond to the shocking allegations in Abortion in Canada is legal for all but inaccessible for too many.

The authors are with an organization called missINFORMED, “a national non-profit designed to provide health education and to promote informed advocacy through evidence-based teachings.”[i]

Our rebuttal does not concern the authors’ stated opinions on abortion, abortion law, and abortion restrictions in Canada, the thrust of their piece. We are addressing the accusations specific to crisis pregnancy centres. We will repeat verbatim each of the eight fraudulent allegations, and respond.

The missINFORMED Allegations

1. Compounding the issue of inequitable abortion access are unregulated crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs).[ii]

Pregnancy care centres are governed by a board of directors and operate in accordance with specified articles of incorporation, by-laws, and stated purpose. Centres adhere to all applicable Canada Revenue Agency and provincial regulations. This includes but is not limited to complying with the legal and regulatory requirements pertaining to financial management, employment, and public disclosure. Our affiliated centres which provide medical services retain healthcare professionals who work within their scope of practice and in accordance with provincial regulatory bodies. Our affiliated centres follow strict best practice guidelines, including adherence to published affiliation principles, counselling ethics, financial stewardship, and centre director accreditation. If any centre is found to be in non-compliance – i.e. unwilling or unable to meet our affiliation standards – such a centre will be removed from affiliation.

2. CPCs are anti-choice wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are advertised as a resource for individuals with unplanned pregnancies to receive support and counselling.

Apart from the “wolves” indictment, this is the only accurate statement in the article. Yes, we advertise support for individuals with unexpected pregnancies. Specifically, information on all pregnancy options: parenting, adoption, and abortion. Further, depending on the unique services of a centre, also prenatal

instruction, parenting classes, financial aid, material support (e.g. maternity clothes, baby clothes, formula, diapers, furnishings), and post abortion care (e.g. individual, support groups, and retreats).

3. However, they deceive clients with misinformation about abortion or other options that may delay or interfere with their ability to access the care they need.

Pregnancy care centres do not delay or interfere with client care access. Centre support is volitional, permission-based, and free of charge. Our affiliates have helped hundreds of thousands of women with onsite assistance and with community referrals for nearly 25 years. Our affiliates provide accurate information on all options at all stages of pregnancy.

To allege “misinformation” the authors inappropriately compare Canadian crisis pregnancy centres to various American centres in a US report: “[At] these centers, women do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options.”[iii] Leaving aside the validity of that particular report, Canadian centres are not American centres. We base our information on scientific literature and the expertise of healthcare and counselling professionals in Canada.

Our client booklet Pregnancy Options Guide has been reviewed by 80 specialized practitioners.

Why so many proofreaders?

First and foremost, for accuracy for our clients.

Second, to ensure the integrity of our information which is often challenged by organizations ideologically opposed to crisis pregnancy centres. Thus, as is noted on our Pregnancy Options Guide,

For accuracy and accountability, the Pregnancy Options Guide has been reviewed by 80 specialized practitioners in Canada, including perinatal nurses, family physicians, obstetricians-gynaecologists, medical ethicists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers.

4. CPCs far outnumber abortion care providers in Canada.

Not a significant point, but still inaccurate. In Canada, there are over 150 abortion facilities and an estimated 125 crisis pregnancy centres.[iv]

5. Why are we, members of a pro-choice non-profit focused on evidence-based education, competing for funding with anti-choice groups such as the CPCs?

Pro-choice groups do not compete with CPCs for taxpayer funding. Pregnancy care centres rely on donations from individuals, families, businesses, churches, and private foundations.[v]

6. We heard promises that were included in the Liberal platform in 2021 to prevent anti-choice groups and CPCs from being assigned charitable status, but we have yet to see these promises kept.

The Liberal platform promise is as follows: “A re-elected Liberal government will: No longer provide charity status to anti-abortion organizations (for example, Crisis Pregnancy Centres) that provide dishonest counseling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy.”[vi]

We agree. All crisis pregnancy centres – and/or prochoice organizations, and prolife agencies – which knowingly provide dishonest information should not retain their CRA charitable status. With respect, we have already communicated our position to the Members of Parliament mandated with the revocation investigation.

7. One recommendation is not to limit who can obtain “charitable” status, but instead restrict what types of charities can receive donations and tax exemptions from a values-based perspective.

We could not disagree more. All charities operate from a values-based perspective. Whether secular or sacred, values are integral and universally recognized for ethical practices and service to others.

8. Religious groups focused on charitable issues could still receive funding, but those imposingreligious beliefs on others would not. 

Faith-based crisis pregnancy centres do not impose religion or sectarian beliefs. Registered charities legally cannot – and ethically must not – impose upon clients organizational or personal beliefs, whether religious, non-religious, ideological, or political.[vii]

Conclusion

The missINFORMED authors reiterate a tired script. Fall trap to confirmation bias. Make disrespectful, unsubstantiated claims.

For a woman to truly have a choice regarding her unexpected pregnancy, she must have authentic options to choose from – including the option to continue her pregnancy, receive support, and not feel pressured into an unwanted abortion. We trust the IRPP readership will see the validity and societal value of pregnancy care centres supporting vulnerable women, men, and families each day across Canada.

On behalf of Pregnancy Care Canada,

Brian Norton, Board Member

Dr. Laura Lewis, Executive Director          

For other details on our charitable impact, please see Frequently Asked Questions and Clarifications.

To learn more about Pregnancy Care Canada, please visit our website at pregnancycarecanada.ca and sign-up for our e-newsletter.

Brian Norton has a Masters of Ministry, a minor in Environmental Education, and Social Worker in-service accreditation. For 8 years, Brian was a government case worker in child protection and for families with children with special needs. For 30 years, Brian was founder and director of a charity providing sexual assault counselling, residential shelter for abused women, and two pregnancy centres. This charity has conducted trainings in 15 countries for outreaches offering help for violated women and for unplanned pregnancy. Brian serves on the board of Pregnancy Care Canada and he also serves at a foodbank/seasonal shelter for people who are homeless.

 Dr. Laura Lewis, after working for 22 years as a family physician, saw the need for education, support, and practical options for women and men facing an unexpected pregnancy. She helped co-found a local meal kitchen, a local pregnancy care centre, and now for six years serves as executive director of Pregnancy Care Canada. She has conducted post abortion grief seminars in Japan and she has uplifted mistreated, trafficked women in restoration programs in Cambodia. Dr. Lewis has a Hon. B. Comm Degree from Queen’s University, a Medical Degree from the University of Western Ontario, and a Certificate of Family Medicine from McMaster University.

Endnotes

[i] Website: missINFORMED. Accessed October 4, 2022.

[ii] Words in italic by us for emphasis.

[iii] Using the ad hominem fallacy ‘guilt by association’ (i.e. here, having similar services) – is poor scholarship. For example, what about the “reports” of US abortion clinics misconduct? Using missINFORMED reasoning, by extension, then similar violations are occurring in Canadian abortion clinics. This of course is an injudicious leap. (Reported violations in US abortion clinics: unlicensed abortion providers; surgical instruments not sterilized; expired medications; unsanitary injection practices; failure to conduct pre-anesthesia evaluations; failing to provide follow-up care; emergency hospitalizations of women negligently injured; patient logs improperly filed and/or discovered offsite; financial fraud; failure to report reasonable suspected rape/abuse of minors; sexual assault of patients by staff; improper disposal of fetal remains. A number of these clinics have surrendered their licences. Some abortion provider staff have been jailed. Sources: Americans United for Life, Unsafe, a 50-state investigative report of 300 abortion facilities cited for 2,400-plus health/safety deficiencies from 2008-2020), 2021; and “Abortion Industry Negligence Nationwide: Highlighting the Most Egregious Offenses,” Summary Document, Charlotte Lozier Institute, 2016; and Live Action, Aiding Abusers: Planned Parenthood’s Cover-Up of Child Sex Abuse, May 2018.

[iv] The figure of approximately 125 pregnancy care centres includes 15 Birthright offices, which according to Birthright are not CPCs. The authors referenced an incorrect figure for pregnancy care centres from a prochoice group which double-counted various CPCs, over-counted existing Birthright offices by a third, and mistakenly added some prolife education groups. The 150-plus figure for abortion facilities includes abortion clinics, abortion-procuring hospitals, and Quebec CLSCs (centre local de services communautaires). This figure does not include family physicians and some primary care clinics which prescribe medical abortions. Sources: Figures culled from Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Birthright International, Alliance Ressources Grossesse, and Pregnancy Care Canada.

[v] Possible minor exceptions that are unrelated to general operations: Some centres participate in the Canada Summer Jobs program. This federal program exists to help youth gain paid work experience prior to resuming studies in the fall. The funds are not for a participating business or charity per se, but go through the organization to the student. Further, a few centres may have received a past grant toward a unique client-care project.

[vi] Liberal Party Platform: “Forward For Everyone.” September 2021, p 4.

[vii] See: “Public Policy Dialogue and Development Activities by Charities.” Canada Revenue Agency. Guidance, Reference CG-027, November 27, 2020.