Showing posts with label Deceitful. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deceitful. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 6)

Part 8 – Arthur’s “high and low” reports

So let’s talk now about the so-called “studies or investigative reports” Arthur found in Canada (Source: Page 6 of Arthur’s 2016 report):

The Pretenders (CTV 2000; W-Five).
Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC (Arthur 2009).
Deception Used in Counselling Women against Abortion (Smith 2010a; Toronto Star).
Are Anti-Choice Crisis Pregnancy Centres Targeting Female Students on Ontario
University Campuses? (Tilley 2011).
Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice: investigation (Woodward 2012; CTV).
Phony Abortion Clinics In Canada Are Scaring Women with Lies (Khandaker 2013a;
VICE).
Enjeux éthiques de l’intervention auprès de femmes vivant une grossesse imprévue au
Québec (Gonin et al. 2014).
Mieux comprendre les ressources conseil grossesse anti-choix au Québec (FQPN 2014).
Toll free but not judgment free: evaluating postabortion support services in Ontario
(Laroche and Foster 2015).

Now there are a couple of interesting things to note about these “studies”.

First, of these nine studies, six of them are not referenced at all in Arthur’s current study (all the ones in bold above). So why are these even included in this 2016 study?

Clue: look at the titles of the studies. All are inflammatory and one-sided in their negativity of CPCs. Their main purpose for being identified at all is simply to make sure the reader is well aware of other anti-CPC reports out there. They add no additional information to Arthur’s current study, and as mentioned before, all of them used limited sources or were retracted, or found fraudulent (e.g. Arthur’s Exposing CPCs in BC) or penned by pro-choice writers with a partial axe to grind.

Of the two Quebec studies Arthur mentions, one of them relies heavily on Arthur’s own 2009 discredited report.

Lastly, Arthur identifies her own 2009 report, but never references the report that rebuts that deceptive and discredited report. I suggest that Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia: A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report doesn’t have the same cachet as Arthur’s other nine examples. Especially if you place its title right beside the title of her own Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC like this:
“Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC”
“Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia: A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report”

I thought it was very gracious of CAPSS in their choice of the word “disrespectful” to describe Arthur’s 2009 report. In fact, it was very Christian of them.

The Pretenders (CTV 2000; W-Five). This isn’t online so I couldn’t review it. I’ve asked CTV twice now to provide me with a link to the show. They never responded. 

Upon further investigation, I learned something very interesting about this show. A CPC involved in this CTV story sued the CTV’s W-Five for serious inaccuracies in the show. I also learned that an out-of-court settlement was agreed upon by both parties. 
 
Apparently, the disputed broadcast is not to be aired again.
 
No wonder I couldn’t find it online. So why is Arthur identifying it at all then? I assume the public is unaware of the show since if you Google it, you won’t find it. So anyone reading Arthur’s current report would think:
“Wow, CPCs are pretending, and maltreating women, how horrid, and I can’t find it online but it must be true!” (Source: Imagination of Patricia Maloney getting fed up of the untruths, deception and misinformation about CPCs)
 
And now Joyce Arthur is using this no longer available and disputed report as further “evidence” that all or most CPCs in Canada mislead women. Arthur even helps the reader along by this notation in her report about the show, a notation that we have only Arthur’s word for, since the show is unavailable for viewing:
“CTV. Nov 5, 2000. ‘The Pretenders.’ W-Five documentary news program exposing maltreatment by the Calgary Pregnancy Care Centre of a woman seeking abortion. (Not online)” (Page 34 of Arthur’s 2016 report)

“Maltreatment” by a CPC? No proof and no evidence that this is true. And no way to see the W-Five show. Just Arthur’s say so. And it infers a generalization to all CPCs.

Next we have this:
Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice: investigation (Woodward 2012; CTV).
This CTV investigation was initiated by a “client complaint,” CTV stated. When I first heard about this allegation, I could only imagine that the “client” had a copy of Joyce Arthur’s 2009 report in hand, a report that has been shown to be inaccurate.
In fact, when I researched the accuracy of this allegation, I discovered – wait for it – that there never was a client complaint. Astonishing.


Further, the CTV clips had its own inaccuracies. After airing, the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver sued CTV for defamation. The Vancouver CPC settled out of court. Here is a statement made by their executive director Brian Norton following the settlement at that time:

“CTV NEWS Update - We described in previous communications with our supporters concerns we had with how CTV News portrayed our Vancouver CPC in a series of television broadcasts earlier this year. We are pleased CTV has since amended the broadcasts posted on its website, as well as the associated web articles.

CTV News Director Margo Harper wrote us concerning its investigation’s purpose:
Our investigation focused predominantly on whether the medical information claims offered by Crisis Pregnancy Centres were accurate … [and] the abortion risks outlined in the brochures offered by these centres were accurate.

Ms. Harper confirmed to us in writing of CTV’s conclusion on these critical issues:
Video of the Vancouver centre was featured briefly in the second story with a voice-over that said the centre offered ‘no far-fetched health warnings’.
CTV News made no claims in our reports suggesting [your CPC] brochures were inaccurate.

While far from a perfect outcome, many of our concerns have been addressed and we will not be spending any more of our time or resources on this issue.” (Source: Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver, Newsletter, dated December 2012 (page 2)) (emphasis added)

In a nutshell, CTV said that the centre offered “no far-fetched health warnings’ and made “no claims in our reports suggesting [your CPC] brochures were inaccurate.”

So then what was the point of Arthur mentioning the show at all, when it is not even referred to in her report other than identifying it as one more example to support Arthur’s anti-CPC crusade? Once again it is the title of the initial report and what it implies about CPCs (e.g. Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice) that Arthur likes.

It seems the show was just another notch in Arthur’s belt of CPC attacks. She had to mention it notwithstanding CTV’s News Director Margo Harper’s written statement.

Here is what the BC Catholic says about this CTV investigation: http://bccatholic.ca/the-news/1842-crisis-pregnancy-overseer-sues-ctv-alleging-defamation

“Norton said the investigation didn’t focus on the medical authenticity of CPC Vancouver’s medical information and instead used abortion-supporting ‘experts’ to denounce all crisis pregnancy centres for misleading the public with abortion misinformation.

He said CTV gave extensive coverage to Greg Smith, the executive director of Options for Sexual Health (Planned Parenthood B.C.) and Dr. Wendy Norman of BC Women’s Hospital and the former president of Options for Sexual Health. He added that CTV did not interview any of the medical experts involved in writing CPC Vancouver’s … [client options] brochures.”

And this from LifeSite News, quoting extensively from a statement issued by then MP Maurice Vellacott: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-mp-releases-his-own-expose-on-ctv-pregnancy-centre-investigation

“The report ignored the scientific literature referenced in the centres brochures which substantiates the centres’ claims that abortion is associated with increased physical and psychological health risks. The reporter was told that this brochure had been reviewed and approved by 25 professional counsellors, physicians and medical researchers. None of this was mentioned in the CTV report.

“CTV also declined to interview physicians with expertise in the area of health risks associated with abortion who had been willing to corroborate, on air, the claims made in the brochure.

“Furthermore, Dr. Dan Reilly, an obstetrician/gynaecologist who also teaches ethics at McMaster, was interviewed by CTV and briefly appeared on the broadcast, but only his comments that challenged the validity of some of the comments made by the Surrey centre volunteer were aired. Dr. Reilly’s written confirmation of the accuracy of the health risks described in the centre’s brochure was passed on to CTV, but those comments by Dr. Reilly never made it into CTV’s report. Also left out of CTV’s report was the fact that the counsellor at the Vancouver centre received a complete endorsement from Dr. Reilly that her comments were medically correct.

“CTV chose to air Dr. Wendy Norman’s comments about abortion being ‘very safe’, neglecting to tell the viewers that Dr. Norman is an abortion provider and researcher and ‘has practiced exclusively in the area of abortion since 1997.’ Her comments to CTV seem to be at odds with the results of a study she herself co-authored which found that ‘Postabortion infection after therapeutic abortion, although uncommon, may have devastating consequences including infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and pelvic pain syndrome.’”

Part 9 - Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC

As noted previously, CAPSS wrote a lengthy rebuttal of Joyce Arthur’s first report in 2009. Arthur’s “study” can pretty much be discounted in its entirety if anyone, including Arthur herself, had the goodwill to actually read the CAPSS 55-page rebuttal to that horrid 2009 report:


I’ll go out on a limb here, and say that I’m pretty sure Arthur read the CAPSS rebuttal. But she never commented on it publicly. She never told the BCHA about it.

I don’t imagine she much liked it. I believe it was too close to the truth. What did Jack Nicholson say in that movie A Few Good Men?

“You can’t handle the Truth.”

I’ve also written extensively on Arthur’s 2009 report on my blog:


Here are more moot references in her 2016 report. They are all American references, and / or are invalid web sites: 
NARAL (American) https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/329/abortion-debateprint.htm (invalid link: page not found)
The American National Abortion Federation https://prochoice.org/ (American) 
The American Cosmopolitan Magazine (American) 
CPC Watch http://www.cpcwatch.org (This site is about Car Seat Safety Checks; nothing about CPCs on this site)  
The American Guttmacher Institute (American) https://www.guttmacher.org/

And of course Arthur references her own writings at Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and her Pro-Choice Action Network, the credibility of which are as suspect as any of Arthur’s writings.

Two French studies:


One of these sites references Arthur’s 2009 report twelve times, plus two other references to her ARCC website. That’s fourteen references in total to Arthur’s own writing. Naturally she would include these references.

CONCLUSION

On the whole of it, one must wonder what Arthur’s agenda is as she continues to hound and persecute CPCs for the good work they do for women in crisis pregnancy situations. Why does Arthur feel this obsessive need to denigrate and spread falsehoods about CPCs on a continual and unabated basis? Where does this hate come from?

I can’t answer any of these questions. But I can provide the reader, in contrast to Arthur, an honest and verifiable perspective about crisis pregnancy centres.

Crisis pregnancy centres are safe places for women to go to when experiencing confusion or fear about an unintended pregnancy. There they will receive love and compassion from people who are trained in giving them information about their options, and ultimately supporting them whatever they decide to do.

It’s difficult to read and research the hatred that exists towards these centres. There is so much misinformation and untruths out there made by persons – prominently here in Canada by abortion activist Joyce Arthur – who clearly have an agenda to destroy these centres.

Their motives are difficult to understand, but the results of their actions harm and discredit the centres, the people who work there, and the women they serve. Ultimately, it will be the women and men who use these centres who will be most affected by the witch hunts of persons who wish to see these centres closed.

One quote I found regarding the work CPCs do was this: “They share God’s love through their actions.”

Amen I say to that.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 5)

Part 6 – Training

Arthur:
“They [CPCs] are generally run by untrained or very little trained volunteers...they get some biblically trained training.” (Source: Arthur’s podcast to BCHA https://player.fm/series/bc-humanists-podcast/joyce-arthur-crisis-pregnancy-centres-in-canada)

I know I’m being repetitive here, but how can anyone conclude anything about a training regime from reading a website? This is clearly impossible. But that doesn’t stop Arthur from making these false allegations. In fact in CAPSS rebuttal of Arthur’s 2009 report, Norton says this about the training for his organization’s two CPCs (in Vancouver and Burnaby), which are normative for many or most CAPSS centres:

“Our charity begins with 21 hours of seminars provided by skilled practitioners in their field of expertise. As examples: a physician on abortion procedures, a registered nurse or doctor on fetal development, a psychologist on counselling, an adoption social worker on adoptions, and so on.

Following these introductory seminars, in-service training happens under the tutelage and supervision of our CPC program directors. (For Ms. Arthur’s plant [undercover “volunteer”], her mentor was a registered nurse.) After completing reading assignments, and participating in dyad and triad role plays, volunteers then observe (with client permission) peer counseling sessions. Volunteers are observed in sessions before assisting clients on their own.

Finally, Exit Surveys (which are reviewed by the CPC program directors) are made available to clients for evaluating the effectiveness and sensitivity of their volunteer helper. All CAPSS affiliated centres in Canada adhere to Best Practice training guidelines.

We respectfully challenge Ms. Arthur to publicly disclose which centres in British Columbia are allegedly providing training sessions of only a “few hours” or “two to three weeks at most”. (Source: Page 34 of CAPSS rebuttal)

This completely contradicts Arthur’s allegations that volunteers are untrained and/or simply biblically trained. I remind the reader that Arthur received a copy of the CAPSS rebuttal quoted above. Still she makes this stuff up.

And once again, Arthur never disclosed which centres gave such poor training, and she is now repeating these same false allegations to the BCHA.

Birthright also provides extensive training for volunteers. From their website:

“Training for new Birthright volunteers starts with a full understanding of the philosophy of Birthright as outlined in its Charter and Policy Directives. New volunteers typically start by partnering with an experienced volunteer who is able to answer questions and explain the office operations. Volunteers are able to grow into their role in Birthright at their own pace and develop their knowledge and skills on an ongoing basis through continuous role-modeling with Birthright peers, reading and discussion, and the annual Birthright International conventions.

Providing emotional support and practical help to women is always the first priority of Birthright volunteers. After completing a training program, volunteers are assigned a regular shift at the Birthright office - usually 3-4 hours once a week - that suits the volunteers’ schedule for reliable commitment for a period of time. Volunteers handle a variety of phone calls, including those from girls and women who are overwhelmed about being pregnant or fear they may be pregnant. Volunteers also help women who come to the office, whether for a free pregnancy test, referrals and information or for a welcoming friend. Some volunteers choose to help in other ways, such as sorting and distributing maternity and baby clothes, cleaning the office, gardening or administrative work. Experienced volunteers often make presentations to school and community groups about Birthright and its services.” (Source: http://birthright.org/en/get-involved)

Once again Arthur’s allegations are not based on fact.

Part 7 – General nonsense


Arthur:
“They [CPCs] do provide misleading and inaccurate information, pretty much all of them if not on their website then in their brochures and in person. They use ethically questionable counseling techniques.” Emphasis added. (Source: Arthur’s podcast to BCHA https://player.fm/series/bc-humanists-podcast/joyce-arthur-crisis-pregnancy-centres-in-canada)

Misleading and inaccurate information on websites?
Not true. By my evidence provided, we see that Arthur is making a verifiable false allegation.
(To remind the reader, I’ve provided in Section I the entire content – verbatim – of the CAPSS client brochure pertaining to abortion information, procedures and informed consent.)

Now to this third and final false allegation by Arthur. As you will see, Arthur also just makes this up:
“They [CPCs] do provide misleading and inaccurate information…’in person’.”
“In person”? By her own admission neither Arthur nor her volunteers met any of the CPC staff, so in-person meetings never happened.
“Ethically questionable counseling techniques”? How can Arthur say this when by Arthur’s own admission, there was no personal contact with the CPCs?
Another problem with Arthur’s study is that she uses many resources from American experiences of American CPCs, which have nothing to do with Canadians CPCs. I have no idea whether the allegations regarding American CPCs are true or not, and I suspect that most or all of them are untrue. But Arthur’s allegations of guilt by association are not evidence of anything.

Arthur:
“Many U.S.-based studies or investigative reports have been done on American CPCs, and all have consistently exposed their tactics of misinformation and deception. A few key ones are listed in the References (City Attorney of San Francisco 2011; NAF 2006; NARAL 2015; SIECUS n.d.; VICE News 2014; Waxman 2006; Winter 2015a/b).” (Source: Page 6 of Arthur’s 2016 report)

Here Arthur makes conclusions about Canadian CPCs based on what supposedly happens in American CPCs. I’m pretty sure these kinds of conclusions would not merit the “scientific study” Arthur is hoping for with her report.
Using Arthur’s ridiculous logic, she would (I guess) believe that many of the abortion clinics in Canada are questionable, unhygienic, and participate in illegal and criminal activities. Including patient deaths. Why? Because it is common knowledge that dozens of abortion clinics have been shut down in their respective states for such proven incompetence and criminal practices.
Here are only a few examples of abortion clinic violations, closed clinics, abortion related deaths, etc., in the United States:
Abortion Industry Negligence Nationwide: Highlighting the Most Egregious Offenses: https://www.sba-list.org/negligence
Exposing Substandard Abortion Facilities: The Pervasiveness of True “Back-Alley” Practices http://www.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/exposing-substandard.pdf
And this one is my favourite. It is a 206-page report:

UNSAFE - HOW THE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS IN AMERICA’S ABORTION CLINICS ENDANGERS WOMEN: http://unsafereport.org/
The report identifies the top 10 violations of American abortion clinics. Below is the description of only the first violation. Then in the report itself, the offending clinics are identified and which state they are in. There are 130 clinics for this one violation alone. There are nine more violations, each one with its own list of clinics.
Violation 1
FAILURE TO ENSURE A SAFE AND SANITARY ENVIRONMENT AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW INFECTION CONTROL POLICIES
More than 130 abortion providers in 22 states failed to follow established infection control protocols. The implicated states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Common violations included failure to follow handing washing protocols, failure to convene infection control committees, and refusal to develop infectious disease protocols.
Other Violations documented by state officials included:
  • Quality assurance programs were not properly implemented.
  • Autoclave and sterilization procedures were not followed.
  • Clinics were generally “unclean,” including some where there was evidence of bloody drainage and fluids on exam tables.
  • Dry blood and/or rust found on equipment.
  • Instruments labeled as “sterilized,” but displaying rust and/or dried blood.
  • Reusable equipment and instruments were not cleaned and sterilized.
  • Contaminated syringe containers were stored incorrectly.
  • The bodily remains of aborted children were stored in the same refrigerator as medications and/or food.
  • Staff members in some facilities were unable to locate sterile suturing supplies and equipment.
  • In a Chicago abortion clinic, a recovery room technician was observed retrieving a paper towel from the garbage and using the same paper towel to cover a tray that would later serve food to patients.
Patients were further exposed to unsanitary conditions by improper water temperatures for laundry, sterilizers not being cleaned monthly, single-use vials being used multiple times and on different patients, vaginal probes not being disinfected between uses, and infectious waste not stored or disposed of properly.
Then follows seven more pages of abortion clinics who failed this one violation.
Here are the remainder nine violations. I’ll spare the reader all the details, and just list the violation itself:
2. FAILURE TO ACCURATELY DOCUMENT PATIENT RECORDS AND KEEP PATIENT MEDICAL INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL
3. FAILURE TO ENSURE STAFF ARE PROPERLY TRAINED FOR DUTIES
4. UNLICENSED/UNQUALIFIED/UNTRAINED STAFF PROVIDING PATIENT CARE
5. EXPIRED MEDICATIONS AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES
6. FAILURE TO PURCHASE AND MAINTAIN REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
7. FAILURE TO ADOPT, FOLLOW, AND/OR PERIODICALLY REVIEW HEALTH AND
SAFETY PROTOCOLS
8. FAILURE TO PROPERLY HANDLE MEDICATIONS
9. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PHYSICAL PLANT STANDARDS
10. FAILURE TO MONITOR PATIENT VITAL SIGNS
So much tragedy including needless deaths and patient harm, violations of every kind, in hundreds of clinics all over America. Dozens of these clinics have been charged and or shut down.
What does this then say about abortion clinics in Canada? Nothing. Similarly, if there were CPCs in the USA which have been misleading in their services, what would this say about centres in Canada? Nothing.
All the references in Arthur’s study that were identified in relation to American CPCs, whether bogus or not, are irrelevant.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 8, 2017

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 4)

Part 4 – Do CPCs pretend they are medical clinics as Arthur states?

One of Arthur’s favourite allegations against CPCs is that they pretend to be unbiased medical clinics or counselling centres. This false allegation is repeated over and over again every time Arthur writes on the topic of CPCs. Arthur also likes to call CPCs “fake clinics” which is both derogatory and untrue.
Of the 100 CPC websites identified in Arthur’s latest report, I did find one group which actually is a medical facility. Since this group is a medical clinic, that leaves 99 actual CPC sites, of which 77 specifically state that they are not medical clinics or that they would provide referrals for medical care (meaning they aren’t a medical facility).
This leaves 22 sites. Of these remaining sites, there is nothing on their sites to imply that they are medical clinics.
For instance, Birthright clearly explains what services they provide (see part 2 above). And nothing Birthright says on their website refers to medical services. They do say this on their “Services” page:
“Referrals to: Medical supports” (Source: http://birthright.org/en/our-services)
So Birthright does refer to medical services. This is very clear. This fact would hold true for all of Birthright’s 26 locations, and not 56 locations as Arthur misinforms her readers.
Most CAPSS CPCs also say on their sites that they are not medical clinics.
Brian Norton stated in the CAPSS rebuttal of Arthur’s 2009 report on this topic:
“We are not pretending to be professional counselling agencies or medical clinics. As is noted on our CAS charity’s CPC website: The Crisis Pregnancy Centre is not a medical facility. We do not perform or refer for abortions. We provide non-judgmental, compassionate support and information on all pregnancy options. Our services are not intended as a substitute for professional counselling or therapy.

Though centre staff have a wide variety of professional training (e.g. social workers, counsellors, nurses, educators and pastors), CPCs are primarily peer counselling agencies. The CAPSS centres which do offer medical services, like STD/STI testing or ultrasounds, have staff with appropriate certification and will advertise themselves accordingly.”

“We respectfully challenge Ms. Arthur to publicly disclose which centres in British Columbia are alleged to be pretending to be medical clinics or professional counseling centres.” (Source: Page 33 of CAPSS rebuttal)

Arthur never disclosed which centres in BC she believes are pretending. And in her 2016 report Arthur is still making these false allegations, both in her writings and in her presentation to the BCHA.
Further, CAPSS policies in their 2017 Core Documents:

  1. “All of our advertising and communication are truthful and honest and accurately describe the services we offer” (Commitment of Care and Competence #8).
  2. “Medical services are provided in accordance with all applicable laws, and in accordance with pertinent medical standards, under the supervision and direction of a licensed physician.” (Commitment of Care and Competence #12).
  3. “The affiliate centre is committed to integrity in dealing with clients, earning their trust, and providing promised information and services. The affiliate centre denounces any form of deception in its corporate advertising or conversation with clients, agencies, or other individuals.” (Statement of Principles #8)

Clearly, CAPSS member centres (and other CPCs) do not pretend they are medical clinics.
In fact, if you Google “medical clinics in Canada,” no crisis pregnancy centres come up:
If a woman is looking on the internet for a medical clinic, she will find one, and it won’t be a CPC.
Arthur takes particular offense when a CPC does not explicitly say they are not a medical clinic. A quick look at any of the links that come up from the Google search above reveals actual medical clinics. You will quickly see all kinds of medical personnel identified on these sites, such as doctors, residents, etc. It is pretty obvious they are medical clinics.
And medical clinics frequently use the word “medical” in their title. You will see none of this for a CPC, and they never use the word “medical” in their title. You mostly see the words “peer counselling” on CPC sites, which is what most CPCs engage in.
If you Google “abortion clinics in Canada,” again no crisis pregnancy centres are found. If a woman is looking on the internet for an abortion clinic, she will find one:
In fact, the first link to come up in this last Google search is Joyce Arthur’s own list of abortion clinics in Canada:
But there’s something else here that I would like to draw the reader’s attention to. Why do CPCs even need to say they are not a medical clinic in the first place? (Unless they specifically do provide medical services which most do not.) CPCs don’t say anything about nurses or doctors or medical staff on their sites. Nothing about medical services care.
Anyone reading these sites can easily see what CPCs do and what they don’t do. If you don’t read anything about medical services care on these websites, then clearly the CPC does not provide medical services care.
Even though CAPSS has completely debunked Arthur’s medical clinic allegations from 2009, Arthur continues to say it in 2016. And she refuses to show any proof of her allegations, even after being challenged by CAPSS. She continues to spread falsehoods.
Crisis pregnancy centres are real places, providing real help, for real women, in real crisis pregnancy situations. They are not “fake clinics” as Arthur has also stated. CPCs are neither fake, nor are they clinics. In fact, CPCs do not even call themselves clinics (a name that connotes medicine); they call themselves centres.
Some examples of Arthur’s use of the term “fake clinics” to describe crisis pregnancy centres:

Part 5 – The Christian “problem”

Another repeated theme of Arthur’s when she is attacking CPCs is that many CPCs come from a Christian (i.e. Protestant and Catholic) perspective/background. But here’s the thing. What does it matter to Arthur if this is the case, and why does she even care?

Does she think all people with a faith background are incompetent or sinister?

In fact, Arthur, a self-identified atheist, would probably be more than welcome at a CPC. Why? Because CPCs do not discriminate or impose their Christian faith/beliefs on clients. They serve women and men of all religions and creeds, and with no faith/religious background.

From CAPSS Core Document:
“I will be non-judgmental and I will not discriminate against any client on the basis of race, colour, religion, creed, national origin, age, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, lifestyle or other arbitrary circumstances.” (Code of Counselling and Peer Support Ethics #1)
“Clients are served without regard to race, colour, religion, creed, national origin, age, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, lifestyle or other arbitrary circumstances.” (Commitment of Care and Competence #1)

Seems pretty straightforward, clear, and concise as to what CAPSS requires of their staff and volunteers.
As for Birthright CPCs, Arthur says this:

“Another 56 CPCs in Canada (31%) are Birthright centres*, affiliates of Birthright International, which was founded by a Catholic woman and is still Catholic-oriented.” (Source: Page 27 of Arthur’s 2016 report)

*(As noted above Birthright does not have 56 CPCs in Canada, as Arthur states, only 26.)
Although Birthright is Catholic in origin, it is a secular/non-sectarian organization. Volunteers can be of any faith or of no faith background:

“Birthright welcomes volunteers of any age, race, gender, or religion who believe firmly in the Birthright philosophy and have a sincere desire to help pregnant women.” (Source: http://birthright.org/en/get-involved)

Considering the fact that Arthur tells us her study was conducted through reviewing centres’ websites and a few phone calls, how does Arthur know Birthright is “Catholic-oriented”? Did she get this from their website? Clearly she didn’t because there is nothing on their site that says this. What is the point of this erroneous observation? And what does Arthur have against Catholics anyway?

Here is what Birthright’s website does say:

“Birthright cares...for every woman who comes to us. We are non-judgmental, and are not involved in any religious or political activities. Birthright is here to help mothers make a plan for their future and the future of their unborn baby.” (Source: http://birthright.org/en/our-philosophy)

And this:
“Birthright takes a non-moralistic, non-judgmental approach toward helping women through their pregnancy dilemmas. Louise regretted the fact that some young unmarried mothers were belittled or ostracized by their relatives: "I can never see anything wrong with any of them."
At Birthright, Louise recreated the supportive homelike environment they deserved. Moreover, Louise helped formulate a Charter, followed by all Birthright chapters worldwide, to define Birthright’s services, to ensure that pregnant women receive the same considerate treatment at every Birthright chapter, and to help volunteers preserve Birthright’s good reputation in the future.” (Source: http://birthright.org/en/discover-birthright)

I then asked Birthright a few more questions.

Is Birthright faith based?

“We are faith based in that all of the volunteers are 100% pro-life and must be to volunteer at Birthright. However we are not affiliated with any specific denomination. Our Charter says we are interdenominational.”

Would you accept volunteers who are atheists for example, as long as they are pro-life?

“We would not ask the religious views of a potential volunteer.”

Do you provide ultrasounds?

“No, we are not a medical facility, therefore [it’s] not allowed in Canada.”

Do you provide any medical services?

“We provide a free urine pregnancy test. We do not diagnose pregnancy as we are not a medical facility. We have a list of pro-life doctors who will look after our clients.”

 So Birthright is not faith-based. Birthrights are not medical clinics. Birthright does not even ask volunteers what their faith is.

If Arthur has issues with these facts/values/ethics/commitments, then the problem doesn’t lie with persons of a Christian faith. Or with the CPCs.

I certainly hope these practices are not a problem for Arthur because it sounds like they might be.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 3)

II. Other Erroneous Allegations

Part 1 - Birthright and CAPSS

Arthur's report is replete with words like, "misinformation", "deception", "misleading", and "inaccurate" when she discusses what CPCs do, and the information they provide women. I counted at least 48 occurrences of these words in Arthur's report. Please keep this in mind as you continue to read my report.
Next I'd like to provide you with what some of what CAPSS and Birthright say about themselves on their websites, keeping in mind Arthur's use of these four words mentioned above to describe CPCs.
(These values and services identified below from CAPSS and Birthright are pretty standard across all crisis pregnancy centres. These two groups – CAPSS and Birthright – make up the bulk of the CPCs in Canada.)
This is what CAPSS says about their member centres:
“CAPSS has 67 affiliated centres which includes satellite centres.
Affiliation with CAPSS requires that they agree with our statement of faith and our Christian values.
They also commit to the core position that Clients are served without regard to race, colour, religion, creed, national origin, age, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, lifestyle or other arbitrary circumstances.
We encourage centres to be consistent in all of their communications. How they share their Christian foundation may vary depending on each independent board and governing decision makers.
They [all centres] are advised to be very clear about this [that they are not medical clinics].
If they do offer medical initiatives there is an expectation as per #12 [in our Commitment of Care and Competence, CAPSS Core Documents]:
“Medical services are provided in accordance with all applicable laws, and in accordance with pertinent medical standards, under the supervision and direction of a licensed physician.”
All affiliates identify that they do not refer for abortions. This is done as part of signing the CAPSS Commitment of Care and Competence.
See #6, #7 and #8 in our Commitment of Care and Competence:
6. Clients receive accurate information about pregnancy, fetal development, lifestyle issues, and related concerns.
7. We do not offer, recommend or refer for abortions or abortifacients, but are committed to offering accurate information about abortion procedures and risks.
8. All of our advertising and communication are truthful and honest and accurately describe the services we offer.”
(Source: Personal communication with CAPSS and http://www.capss.com/)

This is what Birthright says about their 26 centres on their website:
Birthright services are always free, absolutely confidential, and available to any woman regardless of age, race, religion, marital status, or financial situation.
Our Services include:
  • Love, hope, and encouragement
  • Friendship and emotional support
  • Non-judgmental, confidential help
  • Free pregnancy tests
  • Maternity and baby clothes
  • Referrals to:
    • Medical supports
    • Financial and/or employment resources
    • Housing
    • Legal referrals
    • Education assistance
    • Social assistance
    • Professional counselling
  • Information on:
    • Pregnancy and childbirth
    • Prenatal development and care
    • Parenting skills, child care, and child safety
    • Career development and/or continuing education
    • Community programs and/or social assistance
    • Adoption
(Source: Birthright’s website http://birthright.org/en/our-services)
Birthright will never 
  • ...try to scare or pressure a woman into a decision. 
  • ...show or discuss abortion pictures or videos. 
  • ...evangelize or lecture. 
  • ...picket or harass abortion clinics. 
  • ...lobby for legislative changes or engage in the public debate on abortion.
Honest, forthright, sincere, and transparent.

Part 2 - British Columbia Humanist Association

On July 10, 2016, Arthur spoke to the BCHA about her recent report that is the subject of this analysis.
Here is some of what Arthur told the BCHA (Through her podcast: https://player.fm/series/bc-humanists-podcast/joyce-arthur-crisis-pregnancy-centres-in-canada):
“CPCs are anti-choice agencies that present themselves as unbiased medical centres and counseling centres. They claim to provide unbiased information...they’re not medical facilities at all...they are generally run by untrained or very little trained volunteers...they get some biblically trained training...they do provide misleading and inaccurate information, pretty much all of them if not on their website then in their brochures and in person. They use ethically questionable counseling techniques...”
Arthur also said this:
“There was very little research in Canada on CPCs...we looked high and low for anything and everything on CPCs in Canada and we didn’t come up with too much. One recent academic study on Ontario CPCs, one I did on CPCs in BC, 2 in Quebec, 4 media investigations exposés, I uncovered one very good unpublished thesis, now published on our website. All show without exception that CPCs tend to mislead.”
So Arthur tells the BCHA that she searched “high and low” for studies on CPCs. She stated similar sentiments in her report:
“Only a small number of studies or investigative reports have been done on Canadian CPCs, but with similar results – all showing that CPCs tend to mislead and deceive, and sometimes put women’s health at risk. All known Canadian studies/reports, including media exposés, are listed below by date….” (Source: Page 6 of Arthur’s 2016 report)
What Joyce fails to inform or acknowledge is that in follow-up stories on all the reports below, all of them used limited sources or were retracted, or found fraudulent (e.g. Arthur’s Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC, 2009) or penned by pro-choice writers with a partial axe to grind.
Here are those studies she refers to:

The Pretenders (CTV 2000; W-Five).
Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC (Arthur 2009).
Deception Used in Counselling Women against Abortion (Smith 2010a; Toronto Star).
Are Anti-Choice Crisis Pregnancy Centres Targeting Female Students on Ontario University
Campuses? (Tilley 2011).
Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice: investigation (Woodward 2012; CTV).
Phony Abortion Clinics In Canada Are Scaring Women with Lies (Khandaker 2013a; VICE).
Enjeux éthiques de l’intervention auprès de femmes vivant une grossesse imprévue au
Québec (Gonin et al. 2014).
Mieux comprendre les ressources conseil grossesse anti-choix au Québec (FQPN 2014).
Toll free but not judgment free: evaluating postabortion support services in Ontario (Laroche
and Foster 2015).

Notice how every one of these studies/reports is derogatory towards CPCs, as can easily be seen by their titles. What Arthur doesn’t tell either the BCHA or the readers of her 2016 report is that there are other writings out there that contradict these “known” writings. Arthur doesn’t divulge that piece of information to her listeners of the podcast, or to the readers of her report.
One could say that Arthur is misleading, misinforming and deceiving both her readers and the BCHA.
There is at least one study that Arthur clearly doesn’t want anyone to know about, including the BCHA. This 55-page work titled Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia: A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report is a very detailed report that thoroughly rebuts allegations Arthur made in her 2009 report, including numerous factual errors in that report.
In the rebuttal, it says:
In 2009, an abortion activist posted online a report titled, Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia. The report is replete with inaccuracies and false allegations. (Source: Page 3 of CAPSS rebuttal report: http://christianadvocacy.ca/news-events/crisis-pregnancy-centres-in-british-columbia-a-respectful-rebuttal-to-a-disrespectful-report/)
Here are just a few sample quotes by physicians concerning the accuracy of the medical content in the CAPSS rebuttal report, which was vetted by dozens of Canadian medical ethicists and practitioners nationwide. For example:
“I have reviewed ‘A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report’. I find its content to be consistent with the medical literature.” – Dr. Dan Reilly, MD, FRCSC, MHSc (Bioethics)

“Women and their partners deserve accurate information when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. This comprehensive rebuttal helps to ensure inaccuracies previously reported [by Joyce Arthur] in ‘Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia’ are clarified and corrected.” – Dr. Monica Langer, MD, FRCSC, Pediatric Surgeon

I can assure the reader that Arthur did see this rebuttal report, because CAPSS sent it to her. And just to be sure that Arthur did receive it, CAPSS also sent it to all the leadership people associated with Arthur’s own organization.

I have also written extensively about Arthur’s 2009 report and its allegations on my own blog. Apparently none of my writings showed up either in Arthur’s “high and low” searches either:

Let me tell you some things I learned about that 2009 report Arthur wrote, the one CAPSS rebutted.
In 2004, Arthur received a grant from the federal government to write that 2009 report called Exposing crisis pregnancy centres in BC. I learned of this grant money through an Access to Information (ATIP) request I made to the Status of Women Canada. One of the requirements for receiving that $27,400 grant from Status of Women Canada was to publicly acknowledge the grant. Arthur never did that.
And this was not just an oversight on Arthur’s part. On her application form for the grant money, under the heading called Declaration and Undertaking, the applicant [who was Joyce Arthur] makes the following promise:
"I am authorized by the organization to sign this application. I am taking responsibility to ensure that the organization agrees to the following declaration and undertaking...The organization agrees to publicly acknowledge any financial or other assistance provided by SWC." (emphasis added)
Arthur didn’t publicly acknowledge the money like she promised to do: deceptions and misinformation.

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

So let’s talk a little bit about the CAPSS rebuttal to Arthur’s first report, the one she doesn’t tell BCHA or her readers about.
There were many things CAPSS could have taken issue with in Arthur’s dishonest 2009 report, but since time is finite, Brian Norton, a board member of CAPSS, decided only to detail and refute eight of what he called “serious allegations” of that report, along with 12 less serious allegations of that report, and a bunch of actual factual errors of that report (I have already covered Abortion Procedures and Risks in section I).
In the CAPSS rebuttal, Brian Norton asked Joyce Arthur a total of 17 times (seventeen):
“We respectfully challenge Ms. Arthur to publicly disclose [the allegation] and to provide any evidence of the same.”

I asked Norton if Arthur ever responded to his many requests for evidence of Arthur’s allegations in her 2009 report. Norton’s response was:
“Ms. Arthur did not. Not surprisingly. Knowing this would probably be the case, we also individually forwarded the rebuttal to each of Joyce’s organization’s board members. Not even an acknowledgment of receiving our rebuttal. Not by anyone.”

I suggest that the CAPSS rebuttal to Joyce Arthur’s many false allegations about crisis pregnancy centres did, in fact, add to the “body of knowledge” on CPCs. But Arthur withheld this information from the BCHA and her readers.
In the next section, I will identify only a couple of those allegations. The reader will learn a lot about what CPCs actually do from reading the CAPSS rebuttal in its entirety. I encourage anyone who wants to know the truth about CPCs to do the same.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)