Finance committee parrots pro-abortion advocates' disinformation

Dear members of the Finance Committee,

I have a question for all of you regarding Recommendation 65 of your RECOMMENDATIONS OF THESTANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE FOR THE 2026 BUDGET:

"... Budget 2026 should also introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to require greater transparency from anti-abortion pregnancy centres in order to mitigate harm to clients and prevent the misuse of charitable status."

I understand from the extensive research I have done on Pregnancy Care Centres, including numerous Access to Information requests I submitted, that the government of Canada bases these allegations of "harm to clients" and "the misuse of charitable status" on the say-so of the Abortion Rights coalition of Canada. (Note that none of these ATIPs I received revealed any evidence of these allegations outside of ARCC's allegations). 

In other words, it appears that the government of Canada is biased and is basing important decisions that affect these charities on a group whose mission is, to repeatedly attack and libel these charities. ARCC has attacked these centres since at least since 2009 where Joyce Arthur (executive director of both groups) received $27,400 in government funding to kick off her initial blitzkrieg on these centres (using Arthur's previous organization the Pro-choice-Action Network). I, and others, have repeatedly rebutted these false claims (see links below). 

Have any of you actually investigated and researched these centres yourself to corroborate that these centres harm clients and misuse their charitable status?

Because if you have not, and are taking ARCC's word for these allegations, with all due respect, you are agreeing to something very serious and not based on the truth.

I have a second question for you. I noticed that absent from your recommendations are recommendations from three Christian charities on the same subject. Why are their recommendations not included when you do include the scurrilous recommendations from ARCC? This looks like anti-Christian discrimination.

As ARPA stated in their submission to the committee:

"Previous calls to revoke the charitable tax status of pregnancy care centres ignore the benefits that these centres provide to women. At root, calls to revoke their charitable status are ideologically motivated attempts to marginalize a pro-life view with which they disagree." (emphasis added)

Here are the two extensively researched reports refuting the two "studies" Abortion Rights Coalition wrote attacking Pregnancy Care Centres:

(From Pregnancy Care Canada. Note that this rebuttal is based on the Pro-Choice Action Network's report which is the previous name for the Abortion Rights Coalition and headed by the same person) :
Crisis Pregnancy Centres In British Columbia A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report
My rebuttal to a subsequent ARCC report on these centres.
ABORTION RIGHTS COALITION OF CANADA DECEITFUL ON CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES

Here are the three recommendations from the three Christian charities that you chose not to include in your recommendations, in favour of ARCC's ideologically motivated attempt to marginalize a pro-life view with which they disagree. 

ARPA
https://arpacanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Federal-Budget-Consultation.pdf

Christian Legal Fellowship

https://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/blog/2026charityupdate

Canadian Centre for Christian Charities    

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/451/FINA/Brief/BR14102560/br-external/CanadianCentreForChristianCharities-e.pdf

A recent example of Joyce Arthur's ongoing witch hunt against these clinics where she recycles her untruths about these centres. Just have a look at the title of her article:

Unregulated pregnancy centres cause lasting harms—we need transparency UPCs cause harm through deception, disinformation, and other traumatizing strategies meant to turn people away from abortion

I look forward to hearing back from the committee soon with answers to my questions.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney 

Ottawa

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).

 

Fraser Health buckles to pro-abortion rhetoric

Dear Fraser Health,

I was very disappointed to learn that Fraser Health has decided not to partner with Hope for Women. I see that Joyce Arthur and other pro-abortion advocates have poisoned the well by convincing you that Pregnancy Care Centres are horrible places. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Arthur has been spreading disinformation about these centres for many years now. I have written extensively on refuting the fabrications of Arthur, probably as long as she has been spreading them.

Arthur argues that saying you can't refer someone to an abortion service “is disingenuous". Ah, no. It's because the values of these centres prohibit them from referring for abortion. In any event, women do not need a referral for abortion, they can get one whenever they want, and Arthur knows this.  

Arthur also insists on calling these centres "fake clinics", a derogatory term that actually means nothing except to Arthur. And horror of horrors, pregnancy centres use scary words like “hope”, “life” or "beginnings”. 

These centres do amazing work but have to continually put up with the myths spread by Arthur.

Women in Canada can get an abortion at any time during pregnancy, for any reason or for no reason, all paid for by the taxpayer. Abortion advocates also get millions and millions of dollars every year to ply their abortion ideology on the public. In fact just this week the federal government announced another $13 million for abortion. Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights (formerly Planned Parenthood) is the top recipient of this taxpayer largesse.

Guess how much money Pregnancy Care Centres get from the government? Zero, Zilch, Nada. No millions for them.

So dear Fraser Health, it is really too bad you will not partner with a Pregnancy Care Centre. You are missing an amazing opportunity.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 5

Here is my review of the first half of my recent ATIP to Finance. 

I wrote about the second half, here, here, here and here.

This first half contains many references to US statues and US information discussing ways to go after Crisis Pregnancy Centres. It appears that the government was looking for something they could hang their coat on, to justify allegations of misinformation coming from pregnancy care centres. I guess they knew that there was nothing in Canada that helped their case. And any comments made on these statutes were redacted.

And of course, there were more letters from Joyce Arthur. Arthur writes a lot of letters to the government. They were included. 

I've counted the number of exclusions it contains. There are 270 of them.

Section 20 12 times

Section 19 14 times

s.17 62 times

s.19 10 times

Section 69 86 times

s.69 27 times

Section 23 10 times

s.16 49 times

So here's the thing. Why don't we just get rid of the Access to Information Act altogether? I am dead serious. Anything of substance in my request is redacted or withheld. So why do we keep pretending that the Act is working? It is not.

This ATIP took 19 months for me to get information back. Clearly a lot of bureaucrats spent a lot of time reading documents, and making sure nothing of substance was revealed. What a waste of time for bureaucrats. What a waste of time and money, especially for tax payers.

Or, we could make access to information real and allow information to be disclosed. As in, stop redacting and excluding information that the client is looking for. Stop pretending that the Access to information is a real thing. It is not.

Joyce Arthur: Justin Trudeau's closest advisor?

"Hon. Marci Ien (Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.):  

    Mr. Speaker, our message is clear. The right to an abortion and access to abortion go hand in hand, yet there are a growing number of anti-choice pregnancy crisis centres that use deceptive tactics to deter women from making informed decisions and to make choices about their reproductive health. (emphasis added)

     That is why today I introduced a motion to require more transparency from these centres providing pregnancy counselling. Organizations that do not clearly or prominently provide this information to clients risk losing their charitable status. This is about holding them accountable. This is about supports on which women can rely."

I am tired of the untrue allegations and misinformation that pours out of Liberal mouths and pro-abortion advocates regarding crisis pregnancy centres. My many ATIPs show zero evidence to support these false allegations that Pregnancy Care Centres use 'deceptive tactics'. Joyce Arthur seems to be the source of this misinformation, as she writes obsessively and incessantly to politicians about her flavour of the month abortion causes, and Pregnancy Care Centres are at the top of her list. Her witch hunt against these centres started in 2010 when she received a $27,400 grant to write a horrific report slandering these centres that help women through crisis pregnancies. 

Arthur's fabrications have been rebutted time and time again by myself and by others, but she keeps repeating them. And Justin Trudeau and his pro-abortion MPs are more than happy to parrot Arthur.

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2024/02/canadian-government-cant-justify-its.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2024/06/unredacted-atip-reveals-abortion.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/12/i-understand-that-liberal-party-is-pro.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/05/atip-reveals-no-records-to-support.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/06/liberal-forward-for-everyone-liberal.html

Notice Marci Ien's use of the derogatory term 'anti-choice' to refer to pro-life people. Marci, your bias is showing.  

Blind guides all of them.

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

Charity that receives millions in government funding is maliciously attacking other charities

"Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are anti-abortion organizations disguised as clinics that provide counseling and other prenatal services. They often provide inaccurate information about abortion or pregnancy options...[Action Canada is ] Creating a new social marketing campaign to counter the misinformation of these Crisis Pregnancy Centres" (emphasis added)

The pro-abortion Action Canada for Sexual and Reproductive Rights have raked in at least $15,161,401 since 2020 in Federal government grants to do their nasty work. I say at least, because they will also receive some of a $19,638,400 grant to Oxfam Canada. How much, we don't know.

And they also have the nerve to look for more money in the form of donations, to further their malevolent endeavours.

"Yes! I will help put a stop to fake abortion clinics in Canada"

Revenue Canada needs to investigate this hateful behaviour. In fact maybe the ones who should have their charitable status revoked, is Action Canada for Sexual and Reproductive Rights.

Former Minister of Health commends worker with CPC

We know that Justin Trudeau wants to take away charitable status from pregnancy care centres. It seems he follows Joyce Arthur's lead on this, who despises these centres.

However an ATIP revealed that former Minister of Health Jane Philpott seemed to have a different opinion of these centres. At least she did in her former capacity as Minister of Health in Canada, and before she quit the Liberal party when Trudeau fired her friend and colleague Jody Wilson-Raybould for being too ethical.

Here is a letter Dr. Philpott sent to someone who wrote to her about these centres. (emphasis added)

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

JAN 14 2016

Dear,

Thank you for your correspondence of December 29, 2015, inviting me to meet with you to discuss abortion services and how improving the connection with pregnancy centres could be part of a new strategy.

Unfortunately, my schedule does not permit me to accept your kind invitation.

I commend you for your dedication in supporting vulnerable young women facing a crisis pregnancy.

Again, thank you for writing, and please accept my best wishes.

Yours sincerely,

The Honourable Jane Philpott, P.C., M.P.

It isn't crisis pregnancy centres who spread misinformation, it's the pro-aborts

Dear Justin Trudeau,

I do not understand why you have a problem with pregnancy care centres. From this letter you wrote to the Minister of finance, you instruct the minister to do this:

"Introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status".

"Dishonest counseling"? Have you ever been to a pregnancy care centre, and spoken to the people who work there? Or to the people they serve? I don't think you have. If you had, you would know that these allegations are totally untrue. So why are you saying this, and targeting their charitable status?

If you do actually want to know the truth about these centres, may I suggest you watch this 20 minute interview with the Executive director of CAPSS. CAPSS has 82 affiliates who provide this amazing care and support to women. 

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianPhysiciansforLife/videos/296730802653591/

What I do know for sure is this. There are people out there who really really hate pregnancy care centres. And they have been going after pregnancy care centres for many years now, spreading many falsehoods about them. I really hope you haven't been listening to them, because if you have been, you are being led astray.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

ATIP reveals no records to support revoking charitable status of CPCs

Remember this letter from Justin Trudeau to the Finance Department?

"Introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status"

We know of course that crisis pregnancy centres do not provide "dishonest counselling" to women. We also know who else spreads fallacies about CPC's. Pro-abortions Joyce Arthur and Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights loathe crisis pregnancy centres. 

Three peas in a pod.

Arthur wrote two "reports" on her disdain for these centres, "reports" that news outlets like Global news "report" on. Global even posted Arthur's 2016 report on their website. The only problem is that Arthur's 2016 report is full of inaccurate, misleading and mythical information. So is her 2009 report, and both reports were refuted here and here.

I couldn't find any mention on Global's site about these rebuttals to Arthur's fake news "reports". So much for balanced news reporting.

Action Canada receives millions of dollars from Justin Trudeau's pro-abortion government. And Crisis Pregnancy Centres receive zero, zilch, nada from our pro-abortion government. Arthur even received $27,400 to write her hateful 2009 report.

Arthur and Action Canada are doing everything they can to get these groups to lose their charitable status. And Justin Trudeau tags along for the ride.

So what evidence does the department of Finance have to support this proposed revocation of the charitable status of CPC's? I did an ATIP, and guess what? They have no evidence whatsoever.

 Zero, zilch, nada.

This is what I received back from the department of Finance:

"In accordance with section 10(1)(a) of the Act, I must inform you that, after a thorough search, no records exist in the Department of Finance Canada concerning this request."

Not a surprise of course, because everything Joyce Arthur has ever written about CPC's is not true. 

Justin Trudeau what is your evidence that pro-life groups "actively work to spread misinformation about abortion"?

(Letter sent to Justin Trudeau from Maureen Ward. See here.)

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

If you really are pro-choice and not pro-abortion then you wouldn’t be at war with charitable pro-life groups who quite often are the only places that provide real substantial help to pregnant women in crisis. In many cases these women and their children have been abandoned by their friends and their family. Crisis pregnancy centres help these women in crisis.

If you were truly pro-choice, you would support crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs).

As you are well aware, CPCs receive no funding from the government. Yet "pro-choice" groups receive millions and millions of taxpayers' money. As an example Mr. Trudeau, you provided groups like Planned Parenthood Toronto, with 3.4 million dollars in Government funds in 2020 alone. In fact, as of 2019 over a billion dollars has been provided to groups that promote abortion and abortion counseling across Canada. Please see here for those details.

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-scandal-of-raking-in-tax-dollars.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-scandal-of-raking-in-tax-dollars.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-scandal-of-raking-in-tax-dollars_13.html

Mr. Trudeau, to add insult to injury, you plan to take away the Charitable Status from these groups that offer love and support, life-affirming counseling, prayer, and much more. 

And on top of everything else, you are now saying to Canadians that these groups are spreading misinformation and are hurtful to women. Mr. Trudeau, can you please provide me with your evidence for these very serious allegations of which you speak? 

Perhaps you should visit one of these Centres, such as the Miriam Centre (https://miriamcentre.ca/) or Birthright (https://birthright.org/ottawa/), right here in Ottawa and see firsthand the good work they do. These centres are 100% funded by donors.

These Charities that you want to strip of Charitable Status provide love, hope, emotional support, a shoulder to cry on and prayer, not to mention diapers, formula, baby supplies, food and shelter, and much more. Isn’t that the true meaning of charity? 

Please Mr. Trudeau for the sake of the women and children and all Canadians do not do this.  

Sincerely,

Maureen Ward

Justin Trudeau's crusade against pro-life groups continues

Justin Trudeau's decision to revoke the status of pro-life organizations, and in particular crisis pregnancy centres, is wrong headed and vindictive. Unlike organizations who promote abortion, pro-life groups receive no government funding whatsoever. For example, in 2020 Planned Parenthood Toronto received $3,461,811.00 in one year alone according to CRA. Many of these pro-choice groups also have charitable status; an added benefit. All together, these groups received more than a billion dollars in government funding as of 2019. (https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-scandal-of-raking-in-tax-dollars.html).

All pro-life groups "get" is the ability to issue tax receipts. The difference in how these two groups are treated is staggering. Since most pro-life groups, if not all of them, are Christian charities, clearly this is discrimination based on religious and conscience rights.

Regarding crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs) which have been specifically targeted by this Liberal hit job, the Abortion Rights Coalition ARCC has also taken aim for many years at these centres. Why? Because CPCs are pro-life.

Executive director of ARCC Joyce Arthur, has repeatedly engaged in a witch hunt against CPCs, spreading myths and misinformation about CPCs for many years now. ARCC wrote two reports, both of which have been debunked for numerous falsehoods against CPCs. The first report received a $27,400 federal government grant to write the report. 

The first report was also written by Joyce Arthur through her previous organization the Pro-Choice Action Network which is no longer active. Joyce Arthur received that $27,000 grant from the Status of Women. That grant was never publicly acknowledged by Arthur, even though acknowledgement was a condition of receiving the grant money. I discovered the grant through an ATIP https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2013/01/joyce-arthurs-pro-can-grant.html

The two rebuttals against Arthur's attack reports:

https://christianadvocacy.ca/news-events/rebuttal-publication/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6MFo3VlR6b2lFbkk/view?resourcekey=0-Unn21IL1C_Avn8DS77eFEg

The first rebuttal was written by the Executive director of CAPSS. The second rebuttal was written by me.

Trudeau's war against pro-life Canadians began with banning pro-life MPs from his party; continued with stopping the few breadcrumbs pro-life groups received from the Canada Summer Jobs program; and now he wants to prevent their donors from receiving tax receipts. Pro-life groups are 100% donor funded. Taking away their charitable status is wrong, mean and frankly, childish. In the interest of fairness and equity, this must stop. 

31,717 clients chose to attend a CPC for help

September 2021

by Laura Lewis MD, CCFP

"Every year across Canada, individuals voluntarily seek help at local pregnancy centres. The support they receive may include a range of services – free of charge and available to all.

Last year alone, 31,717 clients chose to attend one of our affiliated pregnancy care centres for help. Many of the clients cared for would be considered vulnerable, marginalized, and lacking support. Many were women who were unsure about their pregnancy decision, uncertain about their choice, and some felt pressured to have an unwanted abortion as that was the only choice available.

Pregnancy care centres exist to 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 influence. The staff and volunteers respect a woman’s right to make her own decision and seek to provide her with medically accurate information on all three options: abortion, adoption, and parenting.

After serving as the executive director of Pregnancy Care Canada for the past five years, I have seen the value of work being done each day. And as a medical doctor, I care that the information provided is medically accurate. Our national network of 80 affiliated centres continues to seek new ways and improved ways to serve women, men, and families, reaching out for help. Unfortunately, the good work done at local pregnancy care centres is at times mischaracterized. Perhaps starting a new conversation about the societal importance of pregnancy care centres would be helpful.

May we not overlook the value of local charitable organizations that compassionately care for the vulnerable in our midst – with integrity and great love. One might refer to this as charity at work."

Dear Mona Fortier, Justin Trudeau, Erin O'Toole, Jagmeet Singh and Maxime Bernier,

I hope you will read this fact sheet about the good, and very much needed, work that pregnancy care centres do. 

The women, men, and children who receive care from these centres would ultimately be the ones to suffer if their charitable status is removed.

For more background on the disinformation campaign against pregnancy care centres, and a detailed rebuttal of the falsehoods.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

CPCs a target for calumny -- they won't refer for abortion

It is sad that there are "pro-choice" extremists in Canada who constantly feel the need to attack crisis pregnancy centres. This destructive obsession is because CPCs refuse to refer for abortion, or speak the language of "reproductive justice".

It's not as if CPCs were the wicked places these people make them out to be. Far from it as I've written many times before.

It's almost like a religion for these fanatics. Except one usually thinks of religion as a belief in something loving, transcendent, and divine. Not the case with these CPC haters.

The latest attack comes in the form of a new "study" authored by Haiqi Li called Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Canada and Reproductive Justice Organizations’ Responses. It is published by the Global Journal of Health Science.

I see no point in rebutting all of this report's inaccuracies. They are pretty much the standard fare we have seen many times before from Joyce Arthur. In fact Li uses Arthur's work as a launch pad for her own study. Li also hasn't bothered to read the two rebuttals here and here on Arthur's previous reports about CPCs, instead drawing conclusions based on Arthur's own deceptions and misinformation campaigns against CPCs.

Li uses another tactic of Arthur's. She draws on the alleged American experience of CPCs as somehow pertinent to Canadian CPCs. Two different countries. Two different experiences.

"It can be inferred from the article by LaRoche and Foster, the report by ARCC,
and the broader discussion about CPCs in general, that CPCs in Canada and the services and information they offer indeed infringe on the fully-informed decisions entitled to Canadian pregnant women."

The article by LaRoche and Foster is based on US CPCs and not Canadian CPCs. As well, Arthur's "studies" have been challenged for their heavy use of misinformation, deception and untruth. How can you infer something based on two faulty premises?

One more example, and I'll leave it to the reader to read the paper and come to their own conclusions.

In Arthur's original 2016 report, she states:

"48% [of CPCs] mentioned negative psychological consequences, primarily in the context of “Postabortion Syndrome”, which is not medically recognized...Almost half of the websites, 48%, claimed that women who have abortions are more at risk for negative psychological effects such as depression, “Post-Abortion Syndrome,” or suicidal thoughts. 20% of sites specifically mentioned “Post-Abortion Syndrome,” while 16% did not specifically name “Post-Abortion Syndrome” but listed what many anti-abortion groups believe are its symptoms."

Li repeats Arthur:

"This report [Arthur's 2016 report] analyzes the websites of 166 Canadian CPCs by examining whether they provide specific misinformation. It discovers that 48% of the websites include assertions of abortions’ damaging psychological effects that are medically unrecognized."

There are two problems here. First, none of the CPCs used Arthur's term Post-Abortion Syndrome. Second, some did discuss possible emotional issues after an abortion. This in fact is "medically recognized" contrary to what both Arthur and Li conclude. Read what the BC Women’s Hospital (and others) say “Coping with Ending a Pregnancy:

"It is normal to grieve the loss of any pregnancy. You may have mixed feelings including: sadness, anger, relief, guilt or shame. Here are some resources to help you through these difficult feelings."

Not only was Arthur's original conclusion wrong (that post-abortion psychological consequences are medically not recognized), Li now repeats the untruth. (See Pages 9 to 12 of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres for the full rebuttal on this one detail.)

Crisis pregnancy centres do not misinform women. They do not deceive women. They do not "infringe on the fully-informed decisions entitled to Canadian pregnant women." Repeating a lie over and over again does not make the lie true.

Open letter to ARCC from a crisis pregnancy centre (Part 2)

Back on May 1, ARCC wrote this on their Facebook page about Valley Care Pregnancy Centre:

"We are very disturbed that Scotsburn Milk, Saputo, and Avery's Farm Markets are raising money for the Valley Care Pregnancy Centre. Valley Care, according to its website, does not provide abortion referrals despite saying that they provide "abortion education." Their website also has a disclaimer that reads: "This information is intended for general educational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional medical advice." 

Not only do Pregnancy Crisis Centres operate under anti-choice missions, they provide misinformation and seek to persuade or bully people who want to access an abortion. LOV-ED is an abstinence only education program."

ARCC was "very disturbed" that this CPC was receiving funding from businesses. Doesn't that seem kind of strange to you? It does to me. What business is it of ARCC to care about what a business does, or doesn't do with its money?

Then this statement:

"Not only do Pregnancy Crisis Centres operate under anti-choice missions, they provide misinformation and seek to persuade or bully people who want to access an abortion."

None of these allegations are true or factual as I have written at length before.

ARCC also says that CPCs won't refer for abortions. True enough.

But why should CPCs refer for abortions? If CPCs are against abortions why would they refer women to have them? Wouldn't that be unethical? And women in Canada don't even need a referral to have an abortion in the first place. So no referral is necessary.

ARCC used to complain that CPCs didn't say that they wouldn't refer for abortions.  Now when CPCs explicitly say they won't refer for abortions, ARCC is still complaining. You can't have it both ways.

In response to ARCC's own misinformation and bullying, Valley Care Pregnancy Centre wrote ARCC a letter on their Facebook page. What they wrote was humble, loving and truthful:

"We are deeply saddened and distressed by the misunderstanding your organization displays concerning who we are and what we do as a pregnancy centre in Canada. We are simply convinced of the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death because all humanity is made in the image of God. Therefore, we seek to inform people of the wonders of life including fetal development and the risks of abortion while making strong, loving and tangible support available for those feeling the pressure of friends, family or finances to end the life God has created within them."

Their full letter here.

ARCC apparently has a policy where they won't debate abortion. Why? Because the "choice" to kill pre-born children isn't up for debate in Arthur's world.

ARCC:

"We do not believe that abortion access and choice is a debate. We are not here to argue with anyone about that. Our job is to ensure that people have access to facts. While we have a policy against engaging with anti-abortion debate on our Facebook page, we felt it was necessary to respond to an Open Letter posted as a comment by the Valley Centre Crisis Pregnancy Centre in Nova Scotia."

ARCC goes on with their usual abortion propaganda. You can read it. Or not. Your choice.

Finally, Valley Care Pregnancy Centre asks a very good question I thought:

Since most abortions in Canada occur between 9-12 weeks (with about 10% done after 12 weeks, according to your publications), why do you only display the outside of the fetal sac of a 6-week embryo, but do not show the development inside the 6-week fetal sac; and why do you not show any other fetal images between 7-12 weeks or beyond?

The women we have been honoured to work with have told us they didn’t like to see images of human development between 7-12 weeks and beyond because they were trying to deny that reality. They told us that if they had been given a safe, loving environment to share their story and receive complete information about what was going on inside them, they may have made a different decision, and would not have to live with the regret they now carry.

Therefore, we encourage you to add images to your media list of fetal development, inside the fetal sac, for weeks 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 so that women can make an informed health decision based on how far along their pregnancy has progressed. (www.EHD.org has amazing images and video.)

ARCC's response:

"Abortion clinics have fetal development photos available if patients want to see them, and they can be easily found online too. We are a political group that protects abortion rights, and there is no reason for us to host fetal development photos – especially on our “stock photo” page, the point of which is to stop media from using pictures of fetuses and pregnant bellies. Reproductive rights are not about fetuses. Reproductive rights are about the rights and circumstances of women and transgender people. We are opposed to the type of visual misinformation that CPCs are notorious for disseminating without proper context. People will always have abortions and misinforming them or making them feel guilty will not change that."

"Reproductive rights are not about fetuses"? Well actually, yes they are. The words "Reproductive rights" are just euphemizing abortion. And abortion is all about human rights for two human beings: the woman and the fetus.

ARCC won't show fetal pictures on their website because that could dissuade a woman from having an abortion if she sees what the child looks like, since a fetus looks like a child. It might change her mind about abortion.

I'm struggling with these words "Visual misinformation". Is ARCC saying that pictures of a fetus at various stages of development is visual misinformation? I hope not.

Here are the pictures of fetal development that ARCC won't show.