Focusing on only one group to revoke charitable status "dangerous precedent and unnecessary"

I received access to this ATIP to CRA - A-2023-162975: 

Records related to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) policies and decision-making mechanisms when an organization applies for charitable tax status, and how the CRA makes decisions to conduct audits after receiving a complaint. As well all records related to the 2021 Liberal Party promise to no longer give charitable tax status to anti-abortion groups from October 29, 2022, to May 25, 2023.

It seems that a senior policy analyst had some serious concerns with the government's [read Justin Trudeau's] witch hunt against pro-life organizations, and in particular pregnancy care centres.

From: Ainslie, Camille, Senior Policy Analyst / Planning and Legislation Division / Canada Revenue Agency 

Sent: January 17, 2023 12:12PM

To: Wehbe, Suzanne

Subject: RE: 2023 Bl Report- call for topics

I believe you have extended the deadline for suggestions, but wanted to send you my thoughts so far:

How do other common law regulators of charity explain their approach to regulatory and risk framework, and what can we learn from them? [This is how I view Sharmila's question about balancing resources devoted to up front review (ADM) with downstream review (Compliance), we achieve the balance by focusing on risk]

In the era of fake news, do other common law of charity regulators (in the US, Australia, England and Wales, New Zealand), provide any guidance to charities about the regulatory consequences of circulating mis-information, and if so, what can we learn from this?

Driver: Ministerial mandate letters touch on mis-information regarding anti-abortion organizations. Given the concerns expressed by the TIWG about focusing on one type of group, perhaps we should look more generally at this issue (there are high profile media reports of other organizations spreading mis-information such as those denying the issues at residential schools, or spreading incorrect information about vaccine impacts). (emphasis added)

Identify if, and how, common law regulators of charity in other countries provide guidance to charities on how breaking the criminal law will impact charitable registration...

Then there's this repeated four times in the document:

In April 2022,TIWG, we heard from the roundtable: • There are concerns that the anti-abortion legislation targets only one type of charities [sic] for providing miss information [sic]. This is a dangerous precedent and unnecessary. The Agency already has the tools to address organizations providing miss information (emphasis added)

Government targeting just one group of charities for ideological reasons is never a good idea.

Fraser Health buckles to pro-abortion rhetoric

Dear Fraser Health,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Mark Carney and pro-life Canadians

I sent this letter to Mark Carney six days ago. I haven't heard back from him.

Dear Mark Carney,

I have heard that you are a practicing Catholic.

So I was wondering. If you become Prime Minister, will you restore funding to pro-life groups for the summer Jobs program? Will you allow pro-life people to be Liberal MPs? Will you cease and desist the attacks on Pregnancy Care Centres that began with Justin Trudeau and Joyce Arthur? Basically, will you stop all discriminatory actions against pro-life people?

Pro-life people were not well treated under Justin Trudeau. As it appears you are set to win the Liberal leadership, and that an election will take place soon afterwards, it would be good to know how you would treat pro-life people should you win the election.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 20 12 times

Section 19 14 times

s.17 62 times

s.19 10 times

Section 69 86 times

s.69 27 times

Section 23 10 times

s.16 49 times

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

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

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

Joyce Arthur's libelous attacks on Pregnancy Care Centres

There would be massive repercussions to Pregnancy Care Centres and other pro-life charities if they were to lose their charitable status. From Pete Baklinski:

"Over 40 percent of our country’s registered charities advance religion. If these 32,000 religious charities — including churches and religious-based groups which operate soup kitchens, shelters, refugee homes, and food banks — were to suddenly lose their charitable status, they would be forced, according to Canadian law, to pay a revocation tax, which is predetermined to be equal to 100 percent of the value of the organization’s remaining assets."

All their assets. Poof. Gone. Pure evil. 

And this from a recent interview Rabble did with Joyce Arthur, the lobbyist who has been lobbying the government for years with her unfounded attacks on Pregnancy Care Centres. All emphasis added:

"Originally we were looking for a way to stop CPCs in general from getting charitable tax status maybe revoking status from those that already had it. In the end we actually took a softer line and ARCC was lobbying the government about this for many years....how it went is that the bill would have to transparency disclose whether or not they would provide abortion or contraception and they would have to do that in a very clear way, all their pubic facing material, clients on phone etc. and really we were just calling for them to be honest you know the way they always claim to be honest, so like what's the problem, right? We were calling their bluff in a sense. So it wasn't about saying oh if a CPC misinforms, then you are going to have your charitable tax status revoked, the route we tried to go but it became too difficult because how do you determine what is misinformation and whose science is correct and all that kind of stuff and that's not a job for the CRA right? 

And apparently the CRA lawyers and the finance lawyers who looked at the solution requiring them to disclose properly sort of gave the thumbs up and said we can manage this, i.e. if there is a charter challenge to this law we can defend it cause we wouldn't want the law thrown out of court for being unconstitutional so I think it was a really good compromise in that sense, it would have worked and not really any grounds for the anti-choice groups to complain about it because calling on them to be honest like they claim to be, so it was just too bad that it got dropped..."

"They deliver with a big dose of biblical morality. If you're going to pretend to provide care to pregnant people, the least you should do is provide accurate information. Guilting them, shaming them, scaring them, and confusing them, all these really negative things, which are all totally opposite to the way good patient care should go."

Arthur is a master at misinformation and disinformation as she continues her hideous attacks on these centres. You would think the government would verify Arthur's false claims before bowing to her unrelenting hatred of all things pro-life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question No.874—

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan Winnipeg Centre, MB

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

Links & Sharing

Question No.874—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

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

University—RosedaleOntario

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

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

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

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

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

Links & Sharing

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan Winnipeg Centre, MB

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

Links & Sharing

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-MadeleineQuébec

Liberal

Diane Lebouthillier Minister of National Revenue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: 009343 - your correspondence of October 26, 2022

Dear Ms. DaSilva,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Sent from my iPad

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

From:

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

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

Thank you for your reply to my recent letter.

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

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

I look forward to receiving your reply. Thank you.

Joyce Arthur: Justin Trudeau's closest advisor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blind guides all of them.

Unredacted ATIP reveals abortion advocate's disinformation

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

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

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

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

Redacted information about CPCs

Unredacted information on CPCs

Two questions. 

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

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

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

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

More libelous nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

Lies, lies and more lies

Many MPs tabled petitions against Justin Trudeau's pathetic pledge to remove the charitable status from Pregnancy Care Centres.

Here is the response received by one of these MPs:

"Response by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Signed by (Minister or Parliamentary Secretary): The Honourable Chrystia Freeland

The Government of Canada thanks the petitioners for expressing their views about Canada's charitable sector.

Canada's charitable sector is diverse and vibrant. From education to social support services, an estimated 86,000 registered charities engage in public benefit activities that touch almost every aspect of Canadian life. Registered charities are provided important supports under the tax system, including an exemption from income tax and the ability to issue official donation receipts for any gifts that they receive. All Canadians should have the information they need to freely make decisions over their own bodies and have access to the medical care and services that are their legal right. Registered charities that provide reproductive health services are required to provide accurate and evidence-based information to women with respect to their rights and options at all stages of their pregnancy. In this regard, the Government of Canada is committed to taking action to ensure that organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women are ineligible for charitable registration, while respecting Canadians’ right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and religion under the Charter."

Notice the bolded lies embedded in the response:

All Canadians should have the information they need to freely make decisions over their own bodies and have access to the medical care and services that are their legal right.

The child in a woman's womb is not her own body; the the killing of a pre-born child is not medical care for the child; and abortion is not a right no matter how many times you say it is.

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

Further to Part 1 - Pro-abortion report - anti-Christian hate speech? I'd like to address the fact that Joyce Arthur (the pro-abortion author) uses numerous footnotes that have no bearing on the Canadian experience of Pregnancy Care Centres. They are used to bolster the pro-abortion author's claim that Canadian PCCs deceive and misinform women. 

Note 1: The term Crisis Pregnancy Centres (CPCs) is used interchangeably with Pregnancy Care Centres (PCCs).

Note 2: Many references are to the American experience with CPCs. This is illogical. Two separate countries, two separate situations. They are not the same. Therefore these references should be ignored.

Note 3: Abortion Rights Coalition, Action Canada for Sexual Health, and the BC Humanist association are all fundamentalist biased pro-abortion references. Therefore all these references should be ignored.

Note 4: A majority of the footnotes are links to the PCCs themselves, that the pro-abortion author is looking at. The pro-abortion author sees all manner of bogeymen in these care centres, even though by her own admission she bases all of her so-called "review" of these centres, solely on what she sees on their websites. The pro-abortion author notes that there were no site visits or discussions with centre staff. How can you properly investigate any organization solely on what their website says? You can't.

Note 5: Nine references to Bryant, an American, who writes solely on CPCs in the US. Therefore all these references should be ignored.

Note 6: Sixteen references to Hussey, an American who writes solely on CPCs in the US. Therefore all these references should be ignored.

Note 7: Two references are to articles in Cosmopolitan magazine. These references are about American experience about CPCs. Therefore these references should be ignored.

From the Study aims and objectives:

'The aim of this study was to determine the presence of any deception or misinformation on the websites of Canadian “crisis pregnancy centres,” or CPCs, and compare the results to a similar study we conducted in 2016 to better understand changes over time. CPCs often try to prevent pregnant people from obtaining an abortion or accessing birth control through a variety of tactics that include deception and the dissemination of misinformation.1 This contributes to abortion stigma and interferes with people’s ability to make a fully informed decision about an unwanted pregnancy."  [why bother pretending "to determine the presence of any deception or misinformation", since it's already the pro-abortion author's foregone conclusion that CPCs deceive and misinform women? As well, her 2016 report has also been refuted.] 

Some details below. It's all kind of boring, but necessary. 

Footnotes 1-3 are references to the American/pro-abortion situation. (The pro-abortion author relies heavily on the American experience with CPCs but is not relevant to the Canadian experience.)

1 Bryant AG & Swartz JJ (2018 March). “Why crisis pregnancy centers are legal but unethical.” AMA Journal of Ethics, 20(3), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.3.pfor1-1803

2 College of Public Health at the University of Georgia (2022). “Crisis pregnancy center map.” https://crisispregnancycentermap.com

3 Kirstein M, et al. (2022 October). “100 days post-Roe: At least 66 clinics across 15 US states have stopped offering abortion care.”Guttmacher Institute. https://tinyurl.com/4crx6vn5 

Footnote 8 contains 11 references. All of these refer to the American and pro-abortion viewpoint and thus have no bearing on Canada's situation. Therefore they should be ignored.

See inter alia (by date): Montoya MN, Judge-Golden C, Swartz JJ (2022 June 8). “The Problems with Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Reviewing the Literature and Identifying New Directions for Future Research.” Int J Womens Health. 2022; 14: 757–763. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9189146/; McKenna J and Murtha T (2021 October 28). “Designed to deceive: A study of the crisis pregnancy center industry in nine states.” The Alliance: State Advocates for Women’s Rights & Gender Equality. https://tinyurl.com/2edbj9yc; Polcyn C, et al. (2020 July 27). “Truth and transparency in crisis pregnancy centers.” Women’s Health Reports, 1, 224–226. https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2020.0057; Kimport K (2020 February). “Pregnant women’s reasons for and experiences of visiting antiabortion pregnancy resource centers.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 52(1), 49–56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32103617/; Swartzendruber A, et al. (2019 October) “Crisis pregnancy centers in the United States: Lack of adherence to medical and ethical practice standards; A joint position statement of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine and the North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology.” Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 32, 563–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2019.10.008; NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut Foundation (2018). “Crisis pregnancy centers: A threat to reproductive freedom.” https://tinyurl.com/4ynznaff; Swartzendruber A (2017 November). “A study of information and misinformation presented on the websites of crisis pregnancy centers in Georgia.” Scholars Strategy Network. http://tiny.cc/c864vz; Bryant & Swartz 2018; Winter M (2015 July 14). “What some pregnancy centers are really saying to women with unplanned pregnancies.” https://tinyurl.com/yc257huf; Winter M (2015 April 6). “‘Save the mother, save the baby’: An inside look at a pregnancy center conference.” Cosmopolitan. https://tinyurl.com/327fkjk9; McIntire L (2015 January). “Crisis pregnancy centers lie: the insidious threat to reproductive freedom.” NARAL Pro-Choice America. https://tinyurl.com/u629azpr; Waxman HA [prepared for] (2006 July). “False and misleading health information provided by federally funded pregnancy resource centers.” United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division. www.motherjones.com/files/waxman2.pdf;   

Footnotes 9-17 are a repeat from pro-abortion's 2016 report. All of these were refuted in my 2017 rebuttal of this report https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2017/05/abortion-rights-coalition-of-canada_10.html, a rebuttal the pro-abortion author ignores. She also ignores CAPPS's rebuttal of her 2009 report which corrects numerous of her false allegations about these centres. Therefore these references should be ignored.

9 CTV (2000 November 5). “The Pretenders.” W-Five documentary news program.

10 Arthur J (2009 January). “Exposing crisis pregnancy centres in British Columbia.” Pro-Choice Action Network. www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf.

11 Smith J (2010). “Deception used in counselling women against abortion.” The Star. https://tinyurl.com/ykascusf

12 Tilley S (2011). “Are anti-choice crisis pregnancy centres targeting female students on Ontario university campuses?” Student research paper, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto. www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/2020/06/CPCs-Universities-2011-Sara-Tilley.pdf

13 Woodward J (2012 April 27). “Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice: Investigation.” CTV News Vancouver. https://tinyurl.com/d873u966

14 Khandaker T (2013 June 26). “Phony abortion clinics In Canada are scaring women with lies.” VICE. https://tinyurl.com/yh6sckbp

15 Gonin A, Pronovost V, & Blais M (2014). “Enjeux éthiques de l’intervention auprès de femmes vivant une grossesse imprévue au Québec: Discours et pratiques de ressources anti-choix et pro-choix – Rapport de recherche.” [“Ethical Issues of intervention with unplanned pregnancy experienced by women living in Quebec: Anti-choice and pro-choice discourse and resource practices – Research report.”] Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM) and Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN). https://tinyurl.com/4f6eh5s3

16 FQPN – Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (2014). “Mieux comprendre les ressources conseil grossesse anti-choix au Québec : Outil d’information, de réflexion et pistes de recommandation.” [Translation: “To better understand anti-choice pregnancy counselling resources in Quebec: A tool for information, reflection and tracking recommendations”]. https://api.fqpn.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/RESS_CG_WEB_FIN.pdf

17 LaRoche KJ, & Foster AM (2015 November). “Toll free but not judgment free: Evaluating postabortion support services in Ontario.” Contraception, 92(5), 469–474. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26260687

18 Arthur J, et al. (2016 May). “Review of ‘crisis pregnancy centre’ websites in Canada.” ARCC. https://tinyurl.com/bddv2ybr (already refuted by me in 2017)

Footnote 19 is interesting. Li H. (2019). “Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Canada and Reproductive Justice Organizations’ Responses.” Global Journal of Health Science. Vol. 11, No. 2. https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/view/0/38088

Li writes (notice the bit emphasized below):

"A 2016 study by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), Review of "Crisis Pregnancy Centre" Websites in Canada (Arthur et al., 2016), drew significant attention from both sides of the Canadian “abortion war.” An anti-abortion activist described the study as “witch hunts” (Maloney, 2017). A humanist association referred to it as “a hugely important study” (BC Humanist Association, 2016); similarly, a feminist organization considered it “important to keep in mind” (Laurier Brantford Women's Centre, 2016). One of the very few reports that investigate Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in Canada, this report specifically focuses on how these centers’ websites distribute misinformation and withhold facts. Reproductive justice (RJ) activists found this report significantly constructive because CPCs now outnumber abortion providers in Canada, thus posing a threat to women’s reproductive freedom."

This was the only reference I found anywhere in the report, or in any of the footnotes, or any of the references, from a pro-life person (me). This one sentence, which doesn't actually say anything. Nothing about all of the false allegations I refuted, or anything else from any other pro-life person.

And yes, the pro-abortion author has been, is now, and always will be, on a witch hunt towards Pregnancy Care Centres, since they will not refer women for abortions.

Some might say, why bother with the myths and false allegations written by the pro-abortion author at all? Why not just ignore them? The answer is, of course, we do so at our peril. The media and pro-choice and pro-abortion people frequently (as in, all the time) refer to the pro-abortion author's so-called "research". She knows she can write her allegations with impunity. Very few people contradict her vitriol. Heck even Justin Trudeau quotes from her play book. Pro-abortion people never ever refer to those of us who refute her writings (as in the example above). So it is important that we do what we can to set the record straight.

Below are examples of others quoting the pro-abortion author's work.

20 (Quotes pro-abortion author) Browne R (2019 June 1). “Pro-choice advocates want crisis pregnancy centres defunded and regulated.” Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/5328797/crisis-pregnancy-centres-abortion/

21 (Quotes pro-abortion author) Mitchell K (2019). “Access in Alberta: Understanding barriers to abortion and the role of crisis pregnancy centres.” In Political Challenges and Digital Frontiers Reproductive Health and Services in Southern Alberta. Eds. K Mitchell, C Giles, and C Williams. Parkland Institute, pp. 39–60. https://tinyurl.com/2p9fhneb (14 references to ARCC, including the pro-abortion 's 2009 and 2016 debunked reports.)

22 (Pro-abortion author) Murdoch A (2020). “Analyzing the communication methods of crisis pregnancy centres: A conventional content analysis.” Master’s thesis, Western University. https://tinyurl.com/mr3cszax

Interesting enough, Murdoch states her own pro-abortion bias:

"I went into this work with a bias, in that I am a pro choice woman. I was raised in a pro-choice household, and I have done previous work in the area of reproductive justice...”

Murdoch also has 37 references to Bryant who writes of the American experience with PCCs and so is not relevant to Canada.

23 (Quotes pro-abortion author) Upshaw B (2022 March). “Comparative analysis of crisis pregnancy centres – Canada and international.” Memo prepared for ARCC through PBSC-UNB. https://tinyurl.com/h4sww64z (Refers to 2016 report)

24 (Quotes pro-abortion author). Rudrum S. (2023 December 21). “Student encounters with a campus crisis pregnancy centre: Choice, reproductive justice and sexual and reproductive health supports.” Canadian Journal of Sociology, 47(1). https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs29754 (Refers to 2016 report)

25 to 28 all fundamentalist pro-abortion groups, hell bent on getting rid of Pregnancy Care Centres.

25 Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights (2019 September 19). “Access at a glance: Abortion services in Canada.” https://tinyurl.com/2wbn7p7r

26 ARCC (2021 June). “Anti-choice private member bills and motions introduced in Canada since 1987.” www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations-anti-bills/

27 Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights 2019.

28 ARCC (2022 November). “The refusal to provide health care in Canada.” https://tinyurl.com/3vdfs445

29-30 (American experience, not pertinent to Canada) Hussey LS (2020). The pro-life pregnancy help movement: Serving women or saving babies? USA: University Press of Kansas, p.2

33, 34, 36, 37, 44 Hussey, American experience, not pertinent to Canada, ignore

40, 41, 45, Bryant, American experience, not pertinent to Canada, ignore

46 BCHA (link not provided) BC Humanist Association is pro-abortion

47, 48 (pro-abortion author)

The pro-abortion author also refers to other research regarding the abortion breast cancer (ABC) link, psychological effects of abortion, etc, all of which were refuted in CAPSS rebuttal of the 2009 report.

Sorry for the length. It had to be done.