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.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-charity-gives-dubious-abortion-advice-investigation-1.754309

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/national-christian-charity-probes-questionable-advice-on-abortion-1.754285

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/schools-suspend-counselling-centre-s-sex-ed-classes-1.754359

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:

http://www.christianadvocacy.ca/pdf/Crisis_Pregnancy_Centres_in_BC_A_Respectful_Rebuttal_to_a_Disrespectful_Report.pdf

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:

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2010/04/status-of-women-canada-pays-extreme.html

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/01/joyce-arthurs-pro-can-grant.html

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/03/joyce-arthurs-pro-can-grant.html

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/01/19/int-1440/

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/07/why-joyce-arthurs-report-is-harmful-to.html

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/11/exposing-specificity-of-exposing-crisis.html

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:

http://www.fqpn.qc.ca/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/rapport-de-recherche.pdf

http://www.fqpn.qc.ca/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/RESS_CG_WEB_FIN.pdf

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.

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.

Tomorrow: Part 8 and 9 - Arthur’s “high and low” reports and Conclusion

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:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+medical+clinics+canada&oq=google+medical+clinics+canada&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.9355j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

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:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=google+abortion+clinics+canada&oq=google+abortion+clinics+canada&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.6268j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

In fact, the first link to come up in this last Google search is Joyce Arthur’s own list of abortion clinics in Canada:

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/list-abortion-clinics-canada.pdf

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:

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/fake-clinics.html

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf

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.

Tomorrow: Part 6 Training and Part 7 General Nonsense

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 2)

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

Due to the necessary fact checks on each of Joyce Arthur’s allegations, I am nervous that some readers may get bogged down by the required and detailed responses.

Accordingly, I have first provided a preliminary chapter on the most critical complaint. That is, according to Ms. Arthur, many or most CPCs in Canada provide misleading and inaccurate information on the subject of abortion.

This most important preliminary chapter is titled: Abortion Procedures and Risks.

For those of you not faint of heart, you can continue on with my report which more extensively responds to Ms. Arthur’s other false claims.

I. Abortion Procedures and Risks

The most critical false complaint by Arthur is that CPCs in Canada provide misleading and inaccurate information on abortion.

What Arthur knows – and yet conceals – is that the actual CPC abortion-related information is sourced from obstetricians, medical ethicists and the abortion providers themselves.

For example, according to Brian Norton, a board member with the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) (http://www.capss.com/our-board-of-directors/), the physical risks to abortion outlined in the CAPSS client brochure comes directly from, and is not limited to, abortion providers such as BC Women’s Hospital, Brampton Women’s Clinic, Clinique Médicale Fémina (Montréal), Hamilton Health Sciences, Kensington Clinic, Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital, Women’s College Hospital (Toronto) and Women’s Health Clinic (Winnipeg).

If Ms. Arthur truly believes the content is not accurate, she should conduct her “misinformation” assault not on CPCs but on the primary sources. Namely, Canadian abortion clinics and hospitals providing abortion services.

Further, Ms. Arthur should run a concurrent “misinformation” campaign against pro-choice affirmed peer-reviewed epidemiological studies.

I conducted a fact check of Arthur’s allegations and what written material is available to clients from most, if not all, CAPSS member CPCs. Arthur’s “homework” is found wanting. She is dishonest. Again.

In case you are thinking I am making this up, let me provide you with the precise word-for-word abortion information from the 2017 CAPSS client brochure (available from all member CPCs), titled: Abortion Adoption Parenting: an informational guide for unplanned pregnancy.

On Abortion Procedures (from brochure page 4)

The option of abortion – abortion procedures

There are various abortion procedures available during different stages of pregnancy. In Canada, 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, avoiding the added risks associated with later term abortions. An ultrasound may be given before an abortion to determine the stage of pregnancy and also afterwards to determine if the abortion is complete. Depending on the type of abortion, the procedure may take between 5–30 minutes, with the entire process being generally less than 2 hours.

Medical abortions (typically up to 7 weeks) – There are 2 methods of medical abortion available in Canada. The first is a combination of methotrexate and misoprostol, and the second is a combination of mifepristone (also called mifegymiso) and misoprostol. Methotrexate is usually given by injection while mifepristone is a pill which is swallowed. Misoprostol is a pill which may be self-administered into the vagina or swallowed. Methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug which stops cell growth. Mifepristone blocks two hormones which are necessary for pregnancy to continue. Misoprostol causes the uterus to contract and expel the embryo. Cramping and bleeding will occur as the uterus contracts and as the embryo is expelled. Medical abortion may take several days to complete and require 1 to 3 visits to the abortion provider. If an incomplete abortion occurs then a surgical procedure may be required.

Surgical abortions – With each of the following surgical procedures, the cervix will be dilated (opened) to allow instruments to enter the uterus. Dilation may be done using misoprostol, laminaria (seaweed sticks), an osmotic dilator (expanding sponge) or metal rods. A local anaesthetic, as well as medication to reduce pain, blood loss and risk of infection, may be given. The tissue removed from the uterus may be examined to identify fragments of the embryo or fetus and the placenta.

vacuum aspiration and dilation & curettage: D&C (1st Trimester) – After dilation, abortion is performed by inserting a long tube (cannula) into the uterus. After the contents are removed by suction, a procedure using a loop-shaped instrument (curette) may also be required to scrape the wall of the uterus.

dilation & evacuation: D&E (2nd Trimester) – This method requires 2 appointments. After 24 hours of dilation, this procedure is performed with the use of both suction and scraping used in 1st trimester abortions (above), and the use of forceps to remove fetal parts. For abortions in the late 2nd trimester, prior to the procedure, a needle may be placed into the fetal heart with ultrasound guidance and potassium chloride injected to ensure the fetus is not alive prior to evacuation.

induction of labour (2nd Trimester) – In the 2nd trimester, as an alternative to D&E, sometimes labour is induced and the fetus delivered. As above, potassium chloride may also be used prior to induction of labour.

No misinformation on the abortion procedures in Canada. Totally accurate. Totally current. 

It is Ms. Arthur who misinforms her own readers about CPCs in Canada.

On Possible Risks to Abortion (from brochure page 5)

The CAPSS client brochure begins this one-page section with the following introductory statement, in an increased font size and in colour:

Thousands of abortions are performed every year in Canada, and are considered to be a safe medical procedure. However, as with any medical procedure, there are potential risks that you need to consider before making a final decision.

Totally accurate. Unmistakably clear.

The brief CPC information pertaining to emotional risks is attested by abortion providers and pro-choice affirmed epidemiological studies. Though routinely buried by Ms. Arthur and her ARCC political organization, these possible risk factors are in fact acknowledged by other pro-choice organizations in Canada.

On Emotional Risks

Arthur falsely accuses CPCs for frequently using the term “Post Abortion Syndrome”. But more overriding, she has a deep disdain of any term acknowledging abortion-related grief. From her 2016 report:

“many [CPCs] promote misinformation such as the existence of ‘Post-abortion Syndrome,’ which is not a medically recognized condition.”

“48% (79) mentioned negative psychological consequences, primarily in the context of ‘Post-abortion Syndrome’, which is not medically recognized.”

“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. 51% of sites offered post-abortion counselling at their centres.”

“Figure 4.1: Group 1: 19.9% (n=33) of websites mention or discuss ‘Post-Abortion Syndrome.’ Group 2: 16.3% (n=27) did not name the fictitious syndrome but instead described symptoms that anti-abortion groups often claim it comprises. Group 3: 50.6% (n=84) offered post-abortion counselling.”

“presenting ‘Post-abortion Syndrome’ as real and common (48% of sites). Neither of these claims are supported by evidence (NARAL 2016).”

“Almost half of centres – 48% (79) – claimed on their websites that abortion results in negative psychological consequences, including depression, suicidal thoughts, or ‘Post-Abortion Syndrome’.”

First, let me first address the fact that Arthur is once again fudging the figures – this time on “Post Abortion Syndrome” being a widespread term on CPC websites. Later, I will speak to the more central issue of abortion and emotional risks.

As we have seen above, Arthur is highly critical of CPCs in Canada for using the designation “post abortion syndrome”. She states in her report that 79 websites use the term “post-abortion syndrome” or use some kind of reference to emotional pain of women after abortion.

Reviewing the 79 websites for myself, this is what I discovered.

When I began my research initially, I discovered that a total of two of these 79 sites had used the word “post-abortion syndrome”:

The Back Porch in Edmonton, Alberta (#9):

http://www.pregnancyhelp.ca/abortion

“The most common emotional risk is Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS), which is closely related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).”

Pregnancy Help Centre Durham also uses the term:

http://www.thebackporch.info/faq/abortion-edmonton

“If you are struggling with guilt, sleep disturbances, depression, intruding thoughts, feelings of despair, and/or thoughts to harm yourself, you may be experiencing symptoms of post-abortion syndrome.”

However recently when I rechecked the two sites I noticed that neither of these sites used the term post-abortion syndrome any longer.

Arthur would have unsuspecting readers believe that 79 CPC sites use the term, when only two in fact did; currently none of the 79 sites use the term.

Deceit? Misinformation? Fabrications? What can we call it?

So I then connected with a CAPSS representative on this subject and I learned that Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS) is not, in fact, a term CAPSS member centres use. For the emotional pain women describe to their centre staff, the common terms used by CPCs are “post abortion stress” or “post abortion grief”.

Further, having reviewed the website used by all Birthright centres, they also do not refer to Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS), as Arthur also dishonestly implies.

Below is the actual “position” of this term for CAPSS member centres, which – wait for it –Arthur knows. She and each of her board members received a written hard copy from CAPSS, years ago.

CAPSS informed Arthur and ARCC that their centres do not use the term PAS, and then gave the following explanation:

Years ago, various prolife professional counsellors and physicians in the USA used the term “post abortion syndrome” when describing the very severe cases of abortion grief. That was, and still is today in medical circles, a labeling misnomer. Post abortion syndrome – i.e. as a “post-traumatic stress disorder” – is not recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. When describing the emotional pain of abortion, CAPSS centres in Canada use “post abortion stress” or “post abortion grief”. In fact, since the very inception of CAPSS in 1997, “post abortion syndrome” has never been used in any CAPSS publication – whether in membership documents, volunteer training manuals, or brochures.

Having said that, there are excellent US produced publications on abortion grief and recovery which have used (and some still do use) this term. This is regrettable. The misnomer becomes fodder for unhelpful politicization (whether ‘prochoice’ or ‘prolife’), thus hijacking an important conversation on abortion grief and methodologies of care and healing.

Is there any integrity left within the ARCC organization?

Moving on from Arthur’s word games, I now will discuss the matter of emotional risks to abortion.

Here’s the thing. There are all kinds of organizations (including abortion clinics) other than CPCs who also discuss the emotional risks of abortion.

(Also note that Arthur’s percentages and numbers of clinics detailed above who are “guilty” of identifying these emotional consequences of abortion are also wrong since Arthur’s CPC counts in her report are wrong. More on this later.)

Here is the CAPSS client brochure’s content on possible emotional risks along with references of which organizations identify these risks:

Emotional

After an abortion many women feel some relief, while others have negative emotions. Reactions may be immediate, or feelings may arise years later. Responses vary. They depend on a woman’s age, stage of pregnancy, religious or cultural beliefs, previous mental health, or whether she is being pressured by others into having an abortion.

Women who experience negative emotions after an abortion have reported the following reactions: 4

• Sadness

• Guilt or shame

• Emotional numbing

• Depression

• Nightmares or flashbacks of the abortion

• Alcohol and drug abuse

   • Having thoughts of suicide

As an endnote source, the CAPSS client brochure states (on page 8):

4. Sources: Canadian abortion providers (references available on request). Also see BC Women’s Hospital, “Coping with Ending a Pregnancy,” http://www.bcwomens.ca/health-info/sexual-reproductive-health/abortion-services (accessed March 2017). Also see P.K. Coleman, “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” British Journal of Psychiatry 199, (2011): 180-86; D.M. Fergusson, J.L. Horwood and J.M. Broden, “Abortion and mental health disorders: Evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study,” British Journal of Psychiatry 193 (2008): 444-451; N.P. Mota, M. Burnett and J. Sareen, “Associations between abortion, mental disorders, and suicidal behaviour in a nationally representative sample,” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 55, no. 4 (2010): 239-247.

Also on this topic of post abortion grief is the fact that there are organizations whose entire reason for existence is to help women heal and recover from their abortion grief. See:

http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/rc/canada.aspx

http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/emotions/affects.aspx

Another source which you may find of interest is the Canadian publication, Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013), by the deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. I draw your attention to Section III “The Psychological and Social Impact” and Section IV “Women’s Voices: Narratives of the abortion experience.”

If you doubt that some women experience pain, loss, grief – call it whatever you like – from abortion, I suggest you Google “recovering from abortion grief” and see the resources that come up.

For those women who experience no grief from their abortions, that is wonderful and they are fortunate. But for those who do experience something other than relief, why would Arthur insist that the emotional pain these women experience after abortion isn’t real? And that CPCs, in providing help to these women, are “deceitful and misleading” women, and that CPCs provide “direct misinformation” to these women?

By making these false allegations Arthur belittles and marginalizes women who do experience these very real feelings and emotional suffering after abortion. PostAbortion Community Services (PACS) is one of many abortion recovery outreaches, nationwide, collaborating with CPCs. Program director Doreen Yung informs me that PACS has been helping women seeking healing from abortion grief for 25 years. PACS offers peer counselling, support groups and recovery retreats.

In addition to self-referrals, Yung says clients are referred to them by (pro-choice and pro-life) physicians and agencies. Perhaps to Arthur’s chagrin, PACS has also received referrals from abortion providers.

Abortion Breast Cancer link – truth or fiction?

Regarding informed consent on physical risks to abortion, with only one exception, CPCs note the same risks conveyed by abortion providers and pro-choice medical researchers. In fact, abortion clinics have a much longer and detailed list of the physical risks. Here is the CAPSS client brochure’s entire content on possible physical risks: 

Physical

• Heavy bleeding

• Infection

• Increased risk of premature births in subsequent pregnancies¹

• Damage to cervix or uterus, including a small risk of infection or scarring²
that can be associated with infertility or miscarriage

• Possible link to breast cancer *  

* controversial; see endnote 3

For endnote #1 (above), the following source is noted on page 8: P. Shah and J. Zao, “Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 116, (2009): 1425-42; H.M. Swingle, T.T. Colaizy, M.B. Zimmerman and F.H. Morriss, Jr., “Abortion and the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review with meta-analyses,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 54, no. 2 (2009): 95-108.

For endnote #2, the following detail is noted on page 8: Asherman syndrome, or intrauterine adhesions/scarring or synechiae.

As mentioned, there is only one risk factor that the medical community is in disagreement about. This concerns the worldwide epidemiological research on a possible link to breast cancer. Many studies reveal a link. Many studies do not.

From endnote #3, on page 8 of the brochure: The association between abortion and breast cancer is controversial. “Out of 73 published worldwide studies done to date, 56 show a positive association, of which 35 are statistically significant, while a total of seventeen studies show no link.” From I. Gentles, A. Lanfranchi and E. Ring-Cassidy, Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (Toronto: The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, 2013), 125. The 3 most recent studies (2014) conclude a link. For example: Y. Huang, X. Zhang, W. Li, F. Song, H. Dai, J. Wang et al., “A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females,” Cancer Causes & Control 25, no. 2 (2014): 227-236. More research is needed.

The two other most recent studies also reveal a possible ABC link (not noted in the above endnote due to space):

U. Takalkar et al, “Hormone Related Risk Factors and Breast Cancer: Hospital Based Case Control Study from India,” Research in Endocrinology 2014, (April 2014) Article ID 872124, DOI: 10.5171/2014.872124; and A. E. Lanfranchi and P. Fagan, “Breast Cancer and Induced Abortion: A Comprehensive Review of Breast Development and Pathophysiology, the Epidemiologic Literature, and Proposal for Creation of Databanks to Elucidate All Breast Cancer Risk Factors,” Issues in Law and Medicine 29, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 3-133.

If of interest, here I lift some commentary on this ABC subject from CAPSS rebuttal publication (pages 17, 21-22):

[Eight] years ago, a committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said: “More rigorous, recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.” Committee on Gynecologic Practice, “Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk,” ACOG Committee Opinion No. 434 (Washington: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2009).

And from another recent publication is the following (puzzling) observation: “As for the

epidemiological evidence, most scientists worldwide, except in the US, agree that induced

abortion is a known risk for breast cancer” (emphasis added). Gentles, Lanfranchi, and Ring-Cassidy, Complications, 90. This publication cites and discusses the various worldwide studies.

“This discussion must not be ideological nor fall into the trap of epistemic closure,” the CAPSS rebuttal contends. “We must go where the evidence leads.” The author continues, “Debates on this controversial risk most often concern whether methodologies of particular studies are flawed. But politically predetermined editorial biases are far worse and do much more harm. Women deserve better.”

For the sake and safety of women’s health, CPCs recommend more research. I most certainly concur. I trust you, the reader, do as well.

With this preliminary chapter “Abortion Procedures and Risks” concluded, now to the other erroneous allegations by Ms. Arthur. 

Tomorrow: Other Erroneous Allegations