Government of Canada buys into misinformation about Crisis Pregnancy Centres

According to a recent ATIP I did, the government of Canada says that Crisis Pregnancy Centres:

disseminate abortion myths to pregnant individuals in crisis...Research by XXXXXX (probably Joyce Arthur) and colleagues of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (2023) has consistently found that in presenting information, these groups fail to explicitly disclose their religious agenda and anti-abortion sentiments. CPCs spread false medical information...

For the record, I and others have consistently found that ARCC's reports are full of misinformation and disinformation. (see links below for these rebuttals)

My ATIP to Health Canada:

"What evidence does the Public Health Agency have to issue a warning that "Crisis pregnancy centres ... often look like clinics or support centres, but they are designed to discourage people from getting an abortion"? Also please provide me with your evidence that Crisis pregnancy centres "are designed to discourage people from getting an abortion" (emphasis added)

The government of Canada has also posted statements on their official websites based on these untruths.

From Health Canada's website:

Crisis pregnancy centres

Crisis pregnancy centres are usually run by anti-abortion organizations. They often look like clinics or support centres, but they are designed to discourage people from getting an abortion. (emphasis added)

From the department of Finance we have this statement:

concerns have been raised that some registered charities that offer reproductive health services to women, including pregnancy options counselling—and that are provided federal supports under the tax system—may be spreading misinformation by presenting themselves as a neutral, full-service pregnancy support service organization, 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 organizations, known as crisis pregnancy centres, are restricting the rights of vulnerable pregnant women to choose the reproductive care appropriate to them and their circumstances...According to the Abortion Rights Coalition, there are about 157 anti-choice crisis pregnancy centres in Canada, of which 90.5 per cent are operated by registered charities. (emphasis added)

My ATIP identifies ARCC's reports that spread myths about Crisis Pregnancy Centres, and all of these reports are used as the government's "evidence" against CPCs. These myths have been refuted many times. Yet still the lies are spread and our Canadian government buys into them. The ATIP also references studies from the United States, based on the American experience of CPCs, which of course have nothing to do with the Canadian experience, so these references can be and should be ignored.

Did the government of Canada make any effort at all to read the reports that refute the mythical allegations of the pro-abortion idealogues? There is not one word in the ATIP that would confirm that they did.

Below are the links the government of Canada has chosen to ignore about Crisis Pregnancy Centres preferring to take the word of the pro-abortions.

Part 1 - Pro-abortion report - anti-Christian hate speech?

Part 2 - Pro-abortion report - uses US experience of PCCs

ABORTION RIGHTS COALITION OF CANADA DECEITFUL ON CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES A Critique to ARCC’s “Review of Crisis Pregnancy Centre Websites in Canada”

October 2022 Pregnancy Care Centres in Canada:  A Necessary Rebuttal 

Crisis Pregnancy Centres In British Columbia A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report 

CPCs a target for calumny -- they won't refer for abortion refutes this Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Canada and Reproductive Justice Organizations’ Responses (Li references the Abortion Rights Coalition numerous hit jobs on CPCs. Of course she does.)

Slides from ATIP repeating the misinformation and disinformation from the pro-abortion ARCC

The Cart Access Project from a slide show: Page 413 Beware of Fake clinics...Crisis pregnancy centres ... actively mislead patients (For the record CART received tax payer funding of $4,387,931).

 

The pro-aborts think abortion is healthcare

Update July 23 VICTORY: Billboard Company Removes Abortion Ad After Pro-life Protest by Gianna Amata:

ARCC ran a counter campaign to pressure the company to keep the billboard up. It sent an email blast on July 15, encouraging supporters to reach out to the company to save the billboard. But the company refused to back down. ARCC later admitted that some of the letters supporters sent were hostile, for which it later apologized.

“Sadly, amongst the messages they [the billboard company] received from our supporters were some aggressive ones and even personal attacks on their staff, which caused harm and trauma,” Joyce Arthur, ARCC’s Executive Director, wrote in a July 21 email to supporters.

This doesn't surprise me a bit. 

UPDATE July 13. Brightside has responded to me: 

...we have paused this campaign while we review the matter with our client.

UPDATE July 10. I have it on good authority that the ARCC billboard was put up by the company Brightside Network Inc .

I have good news. And I have bad news.

The pro-abortions at the Abortion Rights Coalition tried last year to find a company to put up a pro-killing of pre-born babies billboard. The good news is that 45% of the companies contacted refused to put up the billboard, and 30% didn’t respond. Smart companies.

The bad news is that one company did agree to put it up (we don't know which company). ARCC's billboard says Abortion is health care. Which of course is a lie because for the 102,705 children who were killed last year before they were born, I am pretty sure those children would disagree that abortion is healthcare. Yea I'm pretty sure about that.

If there is still any doubt that abortion is not healthcare check this out Abortion is Not Healthcare: A Message from the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Not only is abortion not health care, it is a medical atrocity and a grave legal injustice. Just as slavery and the Dred Scott decision unjustly denied the constitutional right to liberty for individuals based on race; abortion deprives innocent children their right to life based on age alone and the Roe decision has no rational basis in law.

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine represents more than 30,000 healthcare professionals, including CMA members, committed to promoting and upholding Hippocratic medicine’s fundamental principles.

And what about the poor women who regret their abortion and or suffered psychological trauma after an abortion? That sign could be quite the trigger for them.

This ad is currently running in London Ont. I sent a letter to the mayor yesterday to voice my disapproval. You can send your own letter as well to Mayor Josh Morgan at mayor@london.ca.

Joyce Arthur: lobbying, grants ($78,792) and brothels

It's common knowledge that Joyce Arthur advises the government on all things pro-abortion revealed through numerous ATIPs that I've done. (i.e. her lobbying to remove funding for summer jobs program for pro-life groups, her relentless attacks on Pregnancy Care Centres, which began with her $27,400 government grant to write a witch hunt of a report against pregnancy care centres, to name just two examples)

Here are a few other examples of her lobby efforts to government:

1) From this government document Family-centred maternity and newborn care: National guidelines, under a chapter on Loss and Grief, they actually refer to Arthur's Why women have abortions. The document is supposed to be about maternity and newborn care, and all of a sudden we're talking about why women have abortions. Why is the government referring to a pro-abortion document from Arthur when the government document is supposedly about family centred maternity and newborn care? 

2) Joyce Arthur's 2021 election spending of $9,984.00. Most of the money went to salaries for her and her pro-abortion friends. More pro-abortion lobbying during an election.

https://www.elections.ca/fin/oth/thi/advert/tp43/TP-0100_ecr.pdf

3) Next we have Joyce Arthur advocating for four brothels at the 2010 Olympics. I am not kidding. Thankfully saner heads prevailed when the Conservative government said that it was

"not in the business of legalizing brothels" 

and would not approve the initiative.

https://www.securitepublique.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/wntr-gms-2010/index-en.aspx#s6a

4) Joyce Arthur the lobbyist: From here you can see that she received funding of $11,000 in 2023 from SSHRC. 

When I did an ATIP on this to Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), I was told that

"Joyce Arthur did not receive funds from SSHRC. Joyce Arthur was listed as a collaborator on a Partnership Engage Grant (PEG) and a Knowledge Synthesis Grant (KSG)". 

But I was unable to find which grant she was collaborating on for this $11,000 amount. I'm waiting for a clarification from the ATIP office.

I did find three other SSHRC grants where Arthur was a collaborator or a partner. Notice that the first one is with Dying with Dignity the pro-death lobbying group.

1) Exploring the impact of belief-based denial of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) on those seeking services: A multi-methods qualitative study in Canada (emphasis added).

2) Exploring the impact of belief-based denial of contraceptive or abortion care on those seeking services: A multi-methods qualitative study in Canada (emphasis added)

The pro-deathers are getting government grant money to target belief based (read Christian) non-acceptance of killing children in the womb and old sick people. I can tell you why Christians don't believe in killing people in one short sentence. You don't need $50,000 to figure it out. Just ask us: Killing people is wrong, evil, unethical and immoral.

3) Abortion Attitudes and Access: Building A Canadian Framework for Reproductive Justice 

What kind of stupidity is this? We have so much freaking 'reproductive justice' in this country with the pro-aborts already getting gazillions of dollars in government funding, plus fully funded free on-demand abortions, that now they just have to come up with new and ridiculous made-up reasons to get more tax-payer money to fund their pro-death ideology. Welcome to Canada.

Unredacted ATIP reveals abortion advocate's disinformation

It is interesting what gets hidden in an ATIP. Usually of course you have no idea what they are hiding because the hidden information is redacted. But recently I had occasion to ask for two different ATIPs about the Abortion Rights Coalition that were about a year apart. I received some duplicate information from them. The first one contained certain redacted information that the second one did not redact. 

The unredacted information revealed that the redacted info from the first ATIP, was ARCC telling their usual unrelenting falsehoods about pregnancy care centres.

This is the text that was redacted from the first ATIP from a letter from ARCC to the Minister of Health on April 4, 2018:

"...Further, it would help to dispel harmful myths about abortion and mitigate the effects of misinformation spread by anti-choice groups. Over 290 anti-choice groups exist across Canada, including about 165 “crisis pregnancy centres” (CPCs)....Most agencies have websites or do other public outreach, and all provide misinformation about abortion and work to reinforce stigma. Further, CPCs often mislead or scare women seeking abortion while advocacy groups seek to recriminalize abortion, which would violate women's charter rights."

Redacted information about CPCs

Unredacted information on CPCs

Two questions. 

1) Why was this information redacted from the first ATIP? The three Information Act clauses cited don't seem pertinent (19 (1), 20 (1) (c), 20 (1) (b.1)) to the redaction. And if they should have been redacted, why weren't they in the second ATIP?

2) Were the bureaucrats embarrassed (as they should be) when they saw this disinformation about pregnancy care centres, so they redacted "all [CPCs] provide misinformation about abortion and work to reinforce stigma"?

Here is another statement from meeting notes ARCC had with MP Don Davies from July 4, 2017 that was redacted from the first ATIP, but not the second ATIP:

"...The idea is to have a central, reliable place that women can go to, mitigating the effects of misinformation provided by "crisis pregnancy centres" and anti-choice groups."

More libelous nonsense.

(Here's a true statement no one can argue with, and is definitely not a lie: All abortion clinics kill babies.)

Fun Fact: My first ATIP took them 442 days to process and contained 11 pages. The second one took 396 days to process and contained 20 pages and produced similar information as the first. Don't let anyone ever tell you that ATIPs are ever processed in 30 days.

19 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Part that contains personal information.

• 20 (1) (c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party; or

• 20 (1) (b.1) information that is supplied in confidence to a government institution by a third party for the preparation, maintenance, testing or implementation by the government institution of emergency management plans within the meaning of section 2 of the Emergency Management Act and that concerns the vulnerability of the third party’s buildings or other structures, its networks or systems, including its computer or communications networks or systems, or the methods used to protect any of those buildings, structures, networks or systems

Why did Liberal MPs vote against Bill C-311?

Liberal MPs do whatever Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition tells them to do when a child in the womb is involved. Just like their leader does. It's kind of sad. What it tells me is that Liberal MPs have a problem thinking for themselves whenever a pre-born child is involved. Whether it's a wanted child, whether it's an unwanted child, whether it's a child that is harmed or murdered along with its mother, as long as that child is in the womb, Liberal MPs and their leader follow what Joyce Arthur tells them to do.

Clearly the Liberals should have supported this bill but they did not.

Michelle Rempel Garner who is pro-choice (as opposed to pro-abortion), did support the bill because as she points out, this bill did address Arthur's concerns about previous similar bills:

"So, this year, Wagantall tabled Bill C-311, which did precisely what ARCC suggested as part of an alternative path forward in its past criticism of Bill C-225. Bill C-311's concise text is explicit. It seeks solely to amend Paragraph 718.‍2(a) of Canada's Criminal Code by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.‍1):

(ii.‍2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant,

(ii.‍3) evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim.

Bill C-311 includes no language that changes access to abortion in any way, shape, or form. It creates no new criminal offenses at all. It states that if someone is convicted of a crime against someone they knew to be pregnant, or that crime caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman during the commission of a crime, then a judge should consider these circumstances in sentencing."

Leah Gazan of Winnipeg Centre, MB actually brings up Jordan Peterson in the debate on the bill. I am not kidding.

"Madam Speaker, the member for Carleton has a history of supporting anti-choice legislation that impacts a woman's right to choose, including, now, his support of Bill C-311. He also has a history of backing up and holding up folks such as Jordan Peterson, who has spoken out aggressively against the trans community and its members' right to bodily autonomy. This is about bodily autonomy and the right to choose. It is very much a part of the debate.

When Cathay Wagantall objects to this and says:

"Madam Speaker, she is not referring to the bill at all. She is defaming and abusing—"

Unbelievably the Liberal speaker allows Gazan's remarks against Jordan Peterson.

Next Leah Gazan actually tells us why she is against the bill:

"The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada opposes this bill, saying “The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada opposes this bill and urges MPs to oppose the bill as well...The bill is redundant.” It goes on to say that the anti-choice movement is using it as a vehicle to advance fetal rights, saying, “Several anti-choice groups have been promoting this Bill C-311 as a means to recognize two victims. They are looking for a route to establish fetal personhood in law, and if this bill passes, they would leverage the bill for that purpose”."

Well then. If Arthur says blah blah blah, then clearly we Liberal MPs have our marching orders.

If I were a Liberal MP, and I shudder at the thought, I would be pretty embarrassed to know that I voted against this important bill because Joyce Arthur told me to.

How we can support pro-life MPs until GAP is gone

Joyce Arthur and company want people to write to the MPs who bravely attended the March for Life.

I took their advice and wrote my own letter. ARCC even compiled the email addresses for me to use. Bonus. You can do the same.

dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca
arnold.viersen@parl.gc.ca
brad.trost@parl.gc.ca
kevin.sorenson@parl.gc.ca
bev.shipley@parl.gc.ca
phil.mccoleman@parl.gc.ca
dane.lloyd@parl.gc.ca
Glen.Motz@parl.gc.ca
rachael.harder@parl.gc.ca
ted.falk@parl.gc.ca
harold.albrecht@parl.gc.ca
david.anderson@parl.gc.ca

And don't forget to cc these MPs:
Maryam.Monsef@parl.gc.ca
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca

Dear MPs who attended this year's March for Life in Ottawa,

Unlike our good friends over at the Abortion Rights Coalition who think you are evil scum of the earth, I am very proud that you chose to stand up for life at this year's annual March for life. I know this can be a very unpopular position to take.

I know it's not always common to do the right thing. But so what? Do it anyway, is my motto.

Contrary to the pro-abortions, I was delighted by your participation in this year's March for Life pro-life rally.

As you know, abortion has fatal consequences for the pre-born child in any and all circumstances. So much so, that death by abortion is 100% guaranteed to kill the pre-born child.

I am for the protection of those who are in the womb. And I would hope that my elected officials would hold these same basic principles, even though many do not. But you do. Awesome.

Contrary to what the Honourable Maryam Monsef (Minister for Women and Gender Equality) put it in her open letter to you; fundamental human rights should be guaranteed for all human beings and since the pre-born child is a human being, they have the same human rights as you and I do.

It's simple logic really, and it shouldn't be too hard to understand--even though Ms. Monsef is apparently ignorant of this important fundamental truth. Too bad for her.

I, as a Canadian woman, am asking you and your party leader to re-affirm Canadians right to protect human rights for all Canadians, including those still in the womb and unable to protect themselves.

Hopefully this Liberal government will soon be a distant memory come October and we can forget that the Governing Abortion Party (GAP) who will be but a distant nightmare that will finally end.

Fingers crossed.

I sincerely hope to hear back from you regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

I love this one. My body my choice. Not your body. Not your choice. Imagine making swag with a lie on it?

Misleading, incorrect, absurd, perverse and galling

Ottawa councillors Jeff Leiper and Catherine McKenney want bus ads removed from Ottawa buses.

No surprise there. "Pro-choice" people hop on this band wagon all the time. They like to march to the drum beat of pro-abortion Joyce Arthur (her description not mine) who has a perpetual campaign to discredit anything and everything that is pro-life.

Listen here to Jeff Lieper on CFRA, who tells us the reason he wants the ads removed. It's supposedly because the phone number on the help line in the ad, doesn't actually belong to Action Life. Duh. Action Life isn't a crisis pregnancy centre. If they used their own number, that would be misleading. Because as an educational group Action Life is not qualified to help women in crisis pregnancy situations, whereas crisis pregnancy centres are qualified.

(Read Action Life Ottawa's full statement on these bus ads here.)

Lieper sounds fairly reasonable when he discusses his position, even though I don't agree with it.

1) But wait a minute. Lieper isn't actually complaining about the phone number. No No No. Lieper, and a few other councillors, don't like pro-life anything. This becomes immediately apparent when you read his written statement.

It sounds like something pro-abortion Joyce Arthur could write on the subject, and heaven knows the woman has written a lot on the subject. 

2) In their statement the councillors go full monty into pro-abortion nonsense land.

"A woman’s right to choose to access health services in order to terminate a pregnancy is well-enshrined in law"

There is no Charter "right to choose" abortion in Canada. This misinformation is declared three times in the statement.

3) They use the word "anti-choice" seven times in their statement. We are not anti-choice. We are "pro-life". Maybe we should start calling the "pro-choice" lobby "anti-life"?

4) This:

"In May 2016, Vancouver researchers with a pro-choice coalition studied the purported counselling services offered by anti-choice groups and found that their tactics were misleading and often based on medically incorrect information. A 2010 Toronto Star investigation found many of the same issues. For example, it’s common for anti-choice groups to assert a link between abortion and breast cancer (“resources” related to which are available from Action Life’s website). As most Canadians will recognize, such claims are absurd and have been well-debunked by the medical establishment."

Not "misleading" or "incorrect" or "absurd" or "de-bunked" at all. Please read articles below for a full rebuttal to Joyce Arthur and her Abortion Rights Coalition 2016 report where her unproven allegations are dismantled piece by piece.

And they call us "perverse" and our ads "galling". Oh wow.

5) Final point. What is this mild mannered, fairly measured single concern about the accuracy of a phone number--that suddenly morphs into a full throttled manifesto against pro-life advocates and their freedom of speech rights? What exactly is Lieper and Mckenny's hidden agenda anyway?

What it's not about, is the telephone number.

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

Rebuttal to Joyce Arthur's report on Crisis Pregnancy Centres

Friday, May 7, 2017 (Post1)
Summary and introduction

Saturday May 8, 2017 (Post 2)
THE CRUX OF THE MATTER
I. Abortion Procedures and Risks

Sunday May 7, 2017 (Post 3)
II Other Erroneous Allegations

Part 1 - Birthright and CAPSS

Part 2 - British Columbia Humanist Association

Part 3 – CAPSS rebuttal to Joyce Arthur’s 2009 report Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC

Monday May 8, 2017 (Post 4)
Part 4 – Do CPCs pretend they are medical clinics as Arthur states? 
And Part 5 - The Christian "problem"

Tuesday May 9, 2017 (Post 5)
Part 6 – Training and Part 7 – General nonsense

Wednesday May 10, 2017 (Post 6)
Part 8 – Arthur’s “high and low” reports
Part 9 - Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC
CONCLUSION

Action Life Ottawa's statement on pro-life bus ads in Ottawa

Action Life Ottawa is an educational pro-life organization founded in 1971. We have never presented ourselves as a pregnancy support centre. For this very reason, we do not direct individuals who need pregnancy support to our office number – instead we direct them to a number that can address those needs.  The helpline number shown in our advertisement is one that we have used for many years in various materials and advertisements. This national helpline number originates from the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Winnipeg and is answered 24 hours a day.

Action Life wants to inform women that pregnancy support exists in Canada. We believe that women have a right to this information. And we direct them where to find it.

Our website provides a listing of local help agencies as well as the national helpline number.

Our advertisement is neither misleading nor inaccurate.  It does not contravene any law or advertising standards. Help is available at the number shown in our advertisement.

We have used this helpline number in three previous OC Transpo bus campaigns beginning in 2016. The first campaign drew some media attention including Evan Solomon’s program.

The same helpline number was listed on a sidewalk kiosk advertisement on Bank street from 1994 to 2007 for a full twelve months of every year. 

Any woman who feels vulnerable under any circumstance should know there is help available. Members of city council should support the right of all women to have access to every support system available to them.

So members of city council should fully support the right of women to have access to this helpline number rather than attempting to have our advertisements removed from OC Transpo buses.

Louise Harbour

Executive Director

Action Life Ottawa

Liar liar pants on fire

Have you ever been lied to? I mean really really lied to? I have. Probably all of us have. And maybe some of us even do the lying.

Last night I dreamed I was with some people who were really really nice. I had spent some time with these people and was forming a relationship with them. Then I found out they were lying to me. They were actually terrorists. And they killed my partner. And I was captured and they wanted me to become a terrorist too. Or die.

It got me thinking about the times I've been lied to. How it felt to be betrayed. It doesn't feel very good.

Then I started thinking about some politicians who lie to us. Every day. Of course we usually know that they are lying to us. You can feel it. It's a different kind of lying than when the people close to us lie.

Then there are the people who lie about abortion. Some directly. Some indirectly. By not telling the full truth. Lies of omission. But the result is the same. They are still lies. People believe the lies and then they start spreading those lies.

Then there is the Catholic church, the one I belong to. Where some bishops have been lying. To cover up evil behaviour. To cover up abusing children and others. Trusts are broken. People are seriously traumatized and harmed.

Some people also lie about the people who run and work at crisis pregnancy centres. They spread all kinds of lies about these places. The liars will say things like the people who work at crisis pregnancy centres are lying to their clients. That they discriminate against LGBT people. That they lie about the physical and psychological risks of abortion.

So many lies. So many destroyed lives.

Speaking of terrorists. And lying. This week Canada's premier pro-abortion organization ARCC called prolifers terrorists. I am not kidding.

I watched two videos recently when I was at a cottage with two of my sisters.

One was called Hush about abortion, the other Fatal Flaws about euthanasia.

These two videos expose many of the lies of the abortion industry and the euthanasia industry. Both are well worth watching.

The world would be a much better place if people just stopped lying. That's all it would take to make a huge difference.

Satan likes it when we lie. It's good to remind ourselves of this sometimes. Me? I go to God to get relief from the lies. Not sure how I could handle the lies otherwise. I guess I'm lucky. How about you?

One group responds to the false allegations about the Summer Jobs Program

March 17, 2018

Attention: Ms. Pat Maloney, Ottawa

Thank you for drawing to our attention questions posted online by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) concerning our charity and Canada Summer Jobs grants (CSJ).

Let me answer each and every question from ARCC pertaining to our charity.

1. What does our organization do?

We are a faith-based charity providing help and resources for women experiencing unintended pregnancies, post abortion grief, domestic violence, and sexual assault. Over 27 years, we have helped 17,000 women. Our services are offered free of charge – a gift from the Lower Mainland wider church community.

Our primary outreaches:

1. Burnaby Safe House – residence for abused women
2. Crisis Pregnancy Centre – Vancouver and Burnaby
3. Post Abortion Community Services – 1:1, groups, retreats
4. Rape Victims Support Network – multi-agency consortium

2. Did our charity not report Canada Summer Jobs grants as income to CRA?

Please know we comply with all regulatory and filing requirements. We have a robust protocol regarding finances. Our on-site staff administrator is so designated. In addition, we contract ‘outside’ with a professional bookkeeper. And furthermore, at fiscal year-end we contract our financial statements and filings via a professional accounting firm.

I know that our administrator and bookkeeper do inform the accounting firm of any CSJ grants, as I am cc’d in this regard. Perhaps the accounting firm has made a line error? Please know I will investigate this matter asap with the accounting firm. And if they have in fact made a filing error, we will have this detail rectified.

3. Is the CSJ program being abused?

No. And there’s some irony here. First, we do not need an annual CSJ grant. Second, we do not need a summer student. Like many charities, we love to support this program which helps out university students. As you would know, charities do not ‘get’ the funds per se, but are a conduit for the student – they receive the funds. In fact, CSJ grants are only minimum wage, so our particular charity tops up the student’s wage.

4. What activities are these funds actually supporting?

I will give three example activities. (With non-identifying details for confidentiality.)

During the CSJ grant time-frame in question by ARCC, our activities included:

(1) Rescuing a woman, here from Southeast Asia, to escape from human trafficking.

(2) Housed for a one year period, a teenage refugee from the Central Africa, gang raped by a militia. Also heartbreaking, her family was slaughtered.

(3) Rescued a pregnant woman planning suicide, as her husband was coercing her to go to an abortion clinic. During her previous pregnancy, he ruthlessly beat her to purposely cause a successful miscarriage.

In this same time-frame raised by ARCC, we helped hundreds of other women: shelter from domestic abuse, pregnancy support services, after abortion care, and sexual assault counselling. Further, we provided aid for low income pregnant women, families, and refugees.   

5. What is the work experience benefit of these activities?

Work experience pertains to the provision of love/care/services/resources for women in crisis. Our summer students (as well as past practicum students) are usually pursuing degrees in social work, human services, counselling, and nursing.

Patricia, in addition to these five major ARCC questions, you also bring to our attention that this political group asks two additional questions about our CAS charity. We will answer those as well.

6. Was the $29.7 K [total of grants from 2011 to 2016] used to undermine sex ed?

No. Our Sexual Integrity material is evidence-based, and complies with sex education learning outcomes of the BC Health and Career Education curriculum. In our presentations, special emphasis is placed on helping teenagers see the value of developing meaningful, healthy relationships. 

We do not differentiate between heterosexual and same-sex relationships.

Topics: media influences, STIs, consensual sex, pornography, date rape, peer pressure, and more.

By invitation, we also provide trainings/presentations outside of Canada – affirming the worth and value of women, for children with imperfections, on healthy relationships, and consensual sex. Our most recent trainings were in Bhutan, India, Nepal, Mongolia, Korea, and Zambia.

7. ARCC implies online that we may oppose “trans rights” and the LGBTQ community.

Our charity is not political, we are pastoral. Unlike ARCC, we are non-discriminatory. ARCC as you know is quite vocal, mean-spirted, and judgemental towards people of faith, and towards people not necessarily espousing their ideology.

In contrast to what ARCC is surmising, the clients we are entrusted to serve come from all lifestyles, gender identities, and sexual orientation. Coincidentally, two of our most recent sexually abused clients are transgender people.

The following value statement is from our Commitment of Care and Competence:

“Clients are served without regard to race, colour, religion, creed, national origin, age, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, lifestyle or other arbitrary circumstances.”

Patricia, once again, thank you for bringing to our attention the questions/allegations made against our charity by ARCC. This group has the right to oppose (but sadly so) faith-based charities being permitted to hire/help summer students via the CSJ program. But certainly not the right to mischaracterize.

Let me conclude by informing you, that we have repeatedly asked ARCC to contact us if they ever have questions about the work of our charity. But alas, ARCC never does. And we don’t know why.

Sincerely,

Brian Norton | Executive Director

Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver

7879 Edmonds Street Burnaby BC V3N 1B9

T 604 525-0999 | F 604 525-2634

www.christianadvocacy.ca

Happy to be a pro-life dinosaur

Pro-abortions make more stuff up

Joyce Arthur didn't like Jonathon Van Maren's article about Robert Lewis Dear who opened fire near and inside a Planned Parenthood near Colorado Springs, Colorado, resulting in three fatalities and nine other casualties.

Joyce thinks that pro-lifers incite violence. I wonder what she calls what Planned Parenthood does when they dismember, decapitate and disembowel children?

So she wrote this as a rebuttal. I think that's what it is.

Fake Person liked what Joyce Arthur wrote. Not sure what FP is saying in her post, but there are a lot of words on it.

Jonathon's subsequent response to Joyce Arthur.

By Jonathon Van Maren

In the wake of the murder of three people, including a pro-life pastor, and the injuring of nine others, Canada’s abortion activists are predictably falling all over themselves to assert that pro-lifers are “terrorists” by virtue of the fact that we highlight the legal killing of pre-born children. Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada responded to my column on the shootings as an “incitement to violence” in and of itself, and the lovely Fern Hill, a pseudonymous blogger, wrote up a profile of the “typical pro-life terrorist” with similar accusations and her signature name-calling. Robyn Urback in the National Post accused GOP candidates who had the gall to mention that Planned Parenthood is guilty of all sorts of horrifying actions against pre-born children of being partially responsible for the murders, as well.

There’s a few things to note here. First of all, this marks the first time that many of Canada’s abortion activists and their media friends took any notice of the Planned Parenthood baby parts scandal at all, so there’s that. They only poked their heads over the battlements of their pro-abortion media bubble when they sensed the chance to lay corpses at the feet of those who tirelessly expose those being killed by the abortion industry.

Second of all, reading through these blog posts would be funny if the accusations were not so serious. It seems that the air-tight skulls of Fern Hill and the rest of the aging feminist vanguard simply cannot understand that some people do not think violence is the answer to everything. The pro-abortion worldview is one based on the very simple premise that violence—the physical destruction of a human being developing in the womb—is the answer to virtually every imaginable situation. Whether it be economic circumstances, a failing relationship, not feeling ready to parent, sexual assault, or medical difficulty, abortion is always the answer. So when a deranged recluse opens fire from a Planned Parenthood in Colorado—shooting, it must be said, without seeming to target anyone specifically—it’s understandable that they look at their ideological opponents in the abortion debate and assume that we’re taking a page out of their playbook.

They simply do not understand the pro-life view: For all their delusional babble about pro-lifers “hating women” (what about the nearly half of American women who are pro-life?), the pro-life movement is opposed, consistently, to using violence in any circumstance. We do not respond to inconvenience or disagreement with violence. That’s the modus operandi of the other side.

It’s interesting how the regular violence against pro-lifers on both sides of the border—including a knife attack at Life Chain in Toronto, pro-life activists getting punched, shoved, and otherwise assaulted by those of the pro-choice worldview, and even instances of pro-life activists getting shot—pass by without even a whisper from abortion activists. In many instances of violence, comments on social media indicate that they feel this is rather righteous blowback against those who dare to show pictures of abortion victims. There’s another irony—abortion is so grotesque and so violent, that according to abortion activists, even showing pictures of it constitutes violence—but for those exposing the deed rather than those committing the deed.

Pro-lifers are aware that the pro-“choice” movement is so desperate to project the violence of their worldview back on to the pro-life movement that they will blame us for virtually anything that they can, while ignoring any violence that doesn’t fit their semi-literate blog diagnoses of what we actually believe. That’s why when abortionist Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia got caught delivering babies alive and then snipping their spinal cords with scissors, the abortion movement promptly blamed pro-lifers, insisting that restrictive laws had forced Kermit to kill with scissors and run a seedy operation, while in fact a nice, clean, sterile clinic could have done the abortions if pro-life laws demanding such things hadn't stopped them. Regardless of innumerable stories of born-alive infants being killed after birth and a cadre of Kermits committing the deeds, abortion activists like Fern Hill, Joyce Arthur, and others happily look away—unless they can find some way to blame pro-lifers for the killing of infants that should have been aborted a few hours earlier, in the womb.

I’d like to make one final point, one already made eloquently by pro-life speaker Scott Klusendorf: Referring to abortion as “killing” is not “violent rhetoric.” It is actually just quoting the abortion industry itself. A few examples he cited:

Dr. Warren Hern, author of Abortion Practice, the medical text that teaches abortion procedures, told a Planned Parenthood conference: “We have reached a point in this particular technology [D&E abortion] where there is no possibility of denying an act of destruction. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

As far back as 1970, a candid editorial in California Medicine, a journal sympathetic to abortion, highlighted the use of deceptive language: “Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra-or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.”

Ronald Dworkin, in his book Life’s Dominion, says abortion deliberately kills a developing embryo and is a choice for death.

Faye Wattleton, former President of Planned Parenthood, told MS Magazine in 1997, “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus” (“Speaking Frankly,” May/June 1997).

And hundreds more examples could be cited. Dr. Utah Landy, in the leaked Planned Parenthood footage, noting that abortion involved “dismembering the fetus” and laughing about when an eyeball dropped on her lap. Dr. Cassig Hammond saying in the same video that he knew one fetus could not have been born alive because “we crushed its skull.” Another abortionist openly admitting that abortion victim photos are real. “I actually have a different response when someone portrays those images,” she said. “Actually that’s my week…some weeks–and that’s what it looks like. Ignoring the fetus is a luxury of activists and advocates. If you’re a provider, you can’t ignore the fetus, right, because the fetus is your marker of how well – how good a job you did…Let’s just give them all the violence, it’s a person, it’s killing. Let’s just give them all that.”

This is violent language, yes. But what pro-lifers are doing is accurately quoting those in the abortion industry. This is not anti-abortion propaganda. It is pro-choice practicality. When pro-lifers are accused of “violent rhetoric” simply for accurately describing—in many cases quoting abortionists—what happens during the abortion procedure, you know that this procedure is truly grotesque.

That’s why the frenzied and hysterical accusations of abortion activists don’t bother me. They can call my colleagues and I “terrorists”—but at the end of the day, it’s simply because they cannot understand those who see violence as the problem, not the solution. 

Why we need Motion 490

I think the timing of Maurice Vellacott's Motion 490 is perfect.

M-490 would change the votability process for Private Members' Business through amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

Mr. Vellacott wrote this in his backgrounder on Motion 490:

Examples of how the current votability determination process has failed  

The most recent and obvious example was Mark Warawa's Motion 408 in 2013. Mr. Warawa appealed the PMB Subcommittee's non-votability ruling to the PROC committee. The members of PROC, which upheld the subcommittee's decision, conducted their deliberations behind closed doors--even MPs who had attended the meeting as observers were told to leave.

I have been compiling the results of my most recent ATIP to the PCO on that very Motion of Mr. Warawa's.

I had asked for all correspondence from the public and from the media, to Prime Minister Harper, regarding Mark Warawa's motion 408.

In other words, I was looking to see how much support there was for Motion 408.

What I learned, was that the Prime Minister received a total of 699 individual emails/letters. Of these 699 letters, there were only two letters against the motion.

That's two letters against the motion. 2 letters. Two letters. T-W-O letters.

Without putting too fine a point on it (pun intended), that means that only point three percent (.3%) of Canadians were against Motion 408.

In one of that large number of against-the-motion letters, the letter writer simply provided the Prime Minister with some of Joyce Arthur's usual pro-abortion nonsense on the subject.

Letter #1:

The second against-the-motion correspondence, is listed below, and includes the letter writer's original email. Then the PM's response. Then the writer's additional response to the PM's response.

Letter #2:

Dear Prime Minister Harper and Minister Ambrose:

Just one day after Minister Ambrose finally acknowledged that the majority of Canadians have no interest in debating abortion, the Canadian Press is reporting that (text blacked out) used House of Commons letterhead to request that the RCMP investigate any abortions performed after 19 weeks in Canada as possible homicides.

Not only do these MPs pretend ignorance of Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which excludes a fetus from the definition of human being in relation to homicide law, they implicitly challenge the constitutionally protected right and freedom of women to choose to have safe, legal abortions.

I note, too, that House of Commons time has been taken up with numerous anti-abortion petitions since the defeat of Motion 312, and that, if legislative experience in the U.S. on the matter of a ban of sex-selective abortion serves as an indicator, more time will be taken up in defeating the equally unwanted Motion 408.

When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? 

I look forward to your response.

The PMO responded with this:

Please know that your e-mail message has been received in the Prime Minister's Office and that your comments have been noted. Our office always welcomes hearing from correspondents and being made aware of their views.  

Thank you for writing.  

Sachez que le Cabinet du Premier ministre a bien reru votre courriel et que nous avons pris bonne note de vos commentaires. Nous aimons titre bien infonnes de ('opinion des correspondants.  

Je vous remercie d'avoir ecrit au Premier ministre.

To which the outraged letter writer responded:

Excuse me, I asked the Prime Minister to respond to my question: When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? He has not responded. Will he kindly respond?

So like Bill C-510, nearly all Canadians who wrote the Prime Minister on M-408 (99.7%), supported it. (Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support)

So why doesn't the Prime Minister listen to the majority of Canadians? Why is he instead listening to only two Canadians? Is this the kind of people Mr. Harper is getting his advice from?

If it is, then I think Mr. Vellacott's newest Motion is just the thing we need.