Cardinal Collins pro-life homily. So beautiful and encouraging.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Pro-life - We will not be cowed into submission
to: Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca,
cc: Catherine.McKenna@parl.gc.ca,
diane.deans@ottawa.ca,
Marianne.wilkinson@ottawa.ca,
Tobi.Nussbaum@ottawa.ca
Jim.Watson@ottawa.ca,
jeff.leiper@ottawa.ca,
Jan.harder@ottawa.ca,
Mathieu.Fleury@ottawa.ca
Dear Jim Watson,
I was very disappointed regarding your decision yesterday to lower the pro-life flag over city hall yesterday.
As pro-life people supporting the rights of preborn human beings, we are continually marginalized and discriminated against. This was just one more example of this kind of sanctioned behaviour.
The flag was a small symbol of what we stand for, and you bent to pressure to remove it, after allowing it to be raised. It's bad enough that Mr. Trudeau has banned pro-life people from his party; now you feel you must "apologize" for allowing us to fly our flag.
Your efforts would have been far better used in controlling the aggressive masked counter protesters, who blocked our way during our city approved March for Life. In fact can you please explain to me why these counter protesters were allowed to block us and not reigned in?
I am so disappointed in this council for these actions, especially you and my own city councillor Tobi Nussbaum.
And please do not tell me that women have a constitutional right to abortion. This is an untruth that has been spread so often that some people still believe it is true.
We speak for preborn children who have no voice and have no protection as long as they are in the womb. These children are not a part of a woman's body and for those who say otherwise are wrong.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
March for Life 2017 - we will never give up
I
was very discouraged after returning yesterday from the March for
Life.
Every
year we do this march, but last year, and now this year, our city
approved route was to go down Elgin St. past the Human Rights
monument. We believe in human rights for preborn children.
But
we were diverted at Albert St. because of other protesters. I took one of their brochures. Oh. And one of them told me she didn't want me video taping her. I ignored her.
The
police told us we were diverted to prevent a confrontation with these
other protesters. The thing is, the thousands of us are peaceful. So
there certainly wouldn't have been a confrontation from us, but
rather from these 50 or so threatening, screaming, masked protesters
who didn't have the courage to show their faces.
Why
did we have to be diverted because these others were allowed to
prevent our charter right to peacefully protest? Why didn't the
police divert them instead? Because the police knew they wouldn't
get lip from us. But they would from these others.
And
these people were
threatening: they originally stood on the corner of Elgin and Slater;
then they began to cross and then stood in the middle of the street
(with police allowing this); then we
were diverted; then when this wasn't enough for these aggressive
people, they headed north on Elgin towards where we were being
diverted. Reinforcement police came running past us towards these
masked people to prevent them from encountering us.
And
what were our city councillors doing all this time? They were
complaining that a pro-life flag was being flown at city hall.
Our
councillors were "outraged" at this. I am not making this
up. They were outraged. They didn't like our "individual
conviction" to stand up and speak out for preborn children who
cannot speak for themselves; who are defenceless; who are killed
every year in the thousands by abortion--and who don't have any city
councillors brave enough to speak up or out for them. (Catherine
McKenney, Diane Deans, Marianne Wilkonson, Tobi Nussbaun, Jeff
Lieper, Mathieu Fleury, Jan Harder, followed by Jim Watson who then
cowed to them and removed our flag)
But
this morning I woke up and I felt much better. I remembered what
Cardinal Collins said yesterday at the pro-life Mass at St. Pat's
Basilica. We are to use our talents in the pro-life cause. We are not
to be discouraged.
We will continue to speak up and to march in defence of preborn
children and their mothers. With a flag or without a flag.
I videotaped the whole march. Thanks to Maureen for downloading it.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 6)
Part 8 – Arthur’s “high and low” reports
So
let’s talk now about the so-called “studies or investigative
reports” Arthur found in Canada (Source: Page 6 of Arthur’s 2016
report):
The Pretenders (CTV 2000; W-Five).
Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC (Arthur 2009).
Deception Used in Counselling Women against Abortion
(Smith 2010a; Toronto Star).
Are Anti-Choice Crisis Pregnancy Centres Targeting
Female Students on Ontario
University Campuses? (Tilley 2011).
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).
VICE).
Enjeux éthiques de l’intervention auprès de femmes vivant
une grossesse imprévue au
Québec (Gonin et al. 2014).
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).
(Laroche and Foster 2015).
Now there are a couple of
interesting things to note about these “studies”.
First, of these nine
studies, six of them are not referenced at all in Arthur’s current
study (all the ones in bold above). So why are these
even included in this 2016 study?
Clue:
look at the titles of the studies. All are inflammatory and one-sided
in their negativity of CPCs. Their main purpose for being identified
at all is simply to make sure the reader is well aware of other
anti-CPC reports out there. They add no additional information to
Arthur’s current study, and as mentioned before, all of them used
limited sources or were retracted, or found fraudulent (e.g. Arthur’s
Exposing CPCs in BC) or penned by pro-choice writers with a
partial axe to grind.
Of the
two Quebec studies Arthur mentions, one of them relies heavily on
Arthur’s own 2009 discredited report.
Lastly,
Arthur identifies her own 2009 report, but never references the
report that rebuts that deceptive and discredited report. I suggest
that Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia: A Respectful
Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report doesn’t have the same cachet
as Arthur’s other nine examples. Especially if you place its title
right beside the title of her own Exposing Crisis Pregnancy
Centres in BC like this:
“Exposing
Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC”
“Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia: A Respectful
Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report”
I
thought it was very gracious of CAPSS in their choice of the word
“disrespectful” to describe Arthur’s 2009 report. In fact, it
was very Christian of them.
The Pretenders
(CTV 2000; W-Five). This
isn’t online so I couldn’t review it. I’ve asked CTV twice now
to provide me with a link to the show. They never responded.
Upon further investigation, I
learned something very
interesting about this show. A CPC involved in this CTV story sued
the CTV’s W-Five for serious inaccuracies in the show. I also
learned that an out-of-court settlement was agreed upon by both
parties.
Apparently,
the disputed broadcast is not to be aired again.
No wonder I
couldn’t find it online. So why is Arthur identifying it at all
then? I assume the public is unaware of the show since if you Google
it, you won’t find it. So anyone reading Arthur’s current report
would think:
“Wow,
CPCs are pretending, and maltreating women, how horrid, and I can’t
find it online but it must be true!” (Source:
Imagination of Patricia Maloney getting fed up of the untruths,
deception and misinformation about CPCs)
And now Joyce
Arthur is using this no longer available and disputed report as
further “evidence” that all or most CPCs in Canada mislead
women. Arthur even helps the reader along by this notation in
her report about the show, a notation that we have only Arthur’s
word for, since the show is unavailable for viewing:
“CTV. Nov 5, 2000. ‘The
Pretenders.’ W-Five documentary news program exposing maltreatment
by the Calgary Pregnancy Care Centre of a woman seeking abortion.
(Not online)” (Page 34
of Arthur’s 2016 report)
“Maltreatment” by a CPC? No proof and no evidence that this is true. And no way to see the W-Five show. Just Arthur’s say so. And it infers a generalization to all CPCs.
Next we
have this:
Surrey
charity gives dubious abortion advice: investigation
(Woodward 2012; CTV).
This
CTV investigation was initiated by a “client complaint,” CTV
stated. When I first heard about this allegation, I could only
imagine that the “client” had a copy of Joyce Arthur’s 2009
report in hand, a report that has been shown to be inaccurate.
In fact, when I researched
the accuracy of this allegation, I discovered – wait for it –
that there never was a client complaint. Astonishing.
Further, the CTV clips had
its own inaccuracies. After airing, the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of
Vancouver sued CTV for defamation. The Vancouver CPC settled out of
court. Here is a statement made by their executive director Brian
Norton following the settlement at that time:
“CTV
NEWS Update - We described in previous communications with our
supporters concerns we had with how CTV News portrayed our Vancouver
CPC in a series of television broadcasts earlier this year. We
are pleased CTV has since amended the broadcasts posted on its
website, as well as the associated web articles.
CTV
News Director Margo Harper wrote us concerning its investigation’s
purpose:
Our
investigation focused predominantly on whether the medical
information claims offered by Crisis Pregnancy Centres were accurate
… [and] the abortion risks outlined in the brochures offered by
these centres were accurate.
Ms.
Harper confirmed to us in writing of CTV’s conclusion on these
critical issues:
Video
of the Vancouver centre was featured briefly in the second story with
a voice-over that said the centre offered ‘no far-fetched
health warnings’.
CTV
News made no claims in our reports suggesting [your CPC] brochures
were inaccurate.
While
far from a perfect outcome, many of our concerns have been addressed
and we will not be spending any more of our time or resources on this
issue.” (Source: Christian Advocacy Society of Greater
Vancouver, Newsletter, dated December 2012 (page 2)) (emphasis added)
In a
nutshell, CTV said that the centre offered “no
far-fetched health warnings’ and made “no claims in
our reports suggesting [your CPC] brochures were inaccurate.”
So then
what was the point of Arthur mentioning the show at all, when it is
not even referred to in her report other than identifying it as one
more example to support Arthur’s anti-CPC crusade? Once again it is
the title of the initial report and what it implies about CPCs (e.g.
Surrey charity gives dubious abortion advice) that Arthur
likes.
It
seems the show was just another notch in Arthur’s belt of CPC
attacks. She had to mention it notwithstanding CTV’s News
Director Margo Harper’s written statement.
Here is what the BC
Catholic says about this CTV investigation: http://bccatholic.ca/the-news/1842-crisis-pregnancy-overseer-sues-ctv-alleging-defamation
“Norton
said the investigation didn’t focus on the medical authenticity of
CPC Vancouver’s medical information and instead used
abortion-supporting ‘experts’ to denounce all crisis pregnancy
centres for misleading the public with abortion misinformation.
He
said CTV gave extensive coverage to Greg Smith, the executive
director of Options for Sexual Health (Planned Parenthood B.C.) and
Dr. Wendy Norman of BC Women’s Hospital and the former president of
Options for Sexual Health. He added that CTV did not interview any of
the medical experts involved in writing CPC Vancouver’s …
[client options] brochures.”
And this from LifeSite
News, quoting extensively from a statement issued by then MP Maurice
Vellacott: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-mp-releases-his-own-expose-on-ctv-pregnancy-centre-investigation
“The
report ignored the scientific literature referenced in the centres
brochures which substantiates the centres’ claims that abortion is
associated with increased physical and psychological health risks.
The reporter was told that this brochure had been reviewed and
approved by 25 professional counsellors, physicians and medical
researchers. None of this was mentioned in the CTV report.
“CTV
also declined to interview physicians with expertise in the area of
health risks associated with abortion who had been willing to
corroborate, on air, the claims made in the brochure.
“Furthermore,
Dr. Dan Reilly, an obstetrician/gynaecologist who also teaches ethics
at McMaster, was interviewed by CTV and briefly appeared on the
broadcast, but only his comments that challenged the validity of some
of the comments made by the Surrey centre volunteer were aired. Dr.
Reilly’s written confirmation of the accuracy of the health risks
described in the centre’s brochure was passed on to CTV, but those
comments by Dr. Reilly never made it into CTV’s report. Also left
out of CTV’s report was the fact that the counsellor at the
Vancouver centre received a complete endorsement from Dr. Reilly that
her comments were medically correct.
“CTV
chose to air Dr. Wendy Norman’s comments about abortion being ‘very
safe’, neglecting to tell the viewers that Dr. Norman is an
abortion provider and researcher and ‘has practiced exclusively in
the area of abortion since 1997.’ Her comments to CTV seem to be at
odds with the results of a study she herself co-authored which found
that ‘Postabortion infection after therapeutic abortion, although
uncommon, may have devastating consequences including infertility,
ectopic pregnancy, and pelvic pain syndrome.’”
Part
9 - Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC
As noted previously, CAPSS
wrote a lengthy rebuttal of Joyce Arthur’s first report in 2009.
Arthur’s “study” can pretty much be discounted in its entirety
if anyone, including Arthur herself, had the goodwill to actually
read the CAPSS 55-page rebuttal to that horrid 2009 report:
I’ll
go out on a limb here, and say that I’m pretty sure Arthur read the
CAPSS rebuttal. But she never commented on it publicly. She never
told the BCHA about it.
I don’t
imagine she much liked it. I believe it was too close to the truth.
What did Jack Nicholson say in that movie A Few Good Men?
“You can’t handle
the Truth.”
I’ve also written
extensively on Arthur’s 2009 report on my blog:
Here
are more moot references in her 2016 report. They are all American
references, and / or are invalid web sites:
NARAL (American) https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/329/abortion-debateprint.htm (invalid link: page not found)
The American National Abortion Federation https://prochoice.org/ (American)
The American Cosmopolitan Magazine (American)
CPC Watch http://www.cpcwatch.org (This site is about Car Seat Safety Checks; nothing about CPCs on this site)
The American Guttmacher Institute (American) https://www.guttmacher.org/
And of
course Arthur references her own writings at Abortion Rights
Coalition of Canada and her Pro-Choice Action Network,
the credibility of which are as suspect as any of Arthur’s
writings.
Two French studies:
One of
these sites references Arthur’s 2009 report twelve times,
plus two other references to her ARCC website. That’s
fourteen references in total to Arthur’s own writing.
Naturally she would include these references.
CONCLUSION
On
the whole of it, one must wonder what Arthur’s agenda is as she
continues to hound and persecute CPCs for the good work they do for
women in crisis pregnancy situations.
Why does Arthur feel this obsessive need to denigrate and spread
falsehoods about CPCs on a continual and unabated basis? Where does
this hate come from?
I
can’t answer any of these questions. But I can provide the reader,
in contrast to Arthur, an honest and verifiable perspective about
crisis pregnancy centres.
Crisis
pregnancy centres are safe places for women to go to when
experiencing confusion or fear about an unintended pregnancy. There
they will receive love and compassion from people who are trained in
giving them information about their options, and ultimately
supporting them whatever they decide to do.
It’s
difficult to read and research the hatred that exists towards these
centres. There is so much misinformation and untruths out there made
by persons – prominently here in Canada by abortion activist
Joyce Arthur – who clearly have an agenda to
destroy these centres.
Their
motives are difficult to understand, but the results of their actions
harm and discredit the centres, the people who work there, and the
women they serve. Ultimately, it will be the women and men who use
these centres who will be most affected by the witch hunts of persons
who wish to see these centres closed.
One
quote I found regarding the work CPCs do was this: “They
share God’s love through their actions.”
Amen
I say to that.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres (Post 5)
Part 6 – Training
Arthur:
“They [CPCs] are generally run by untrained or very little trained
volunteers...they get some biblically trained training.” (Source:
Arthur’s podcast to BCHA
https://player.fm/series/bc-humanists-podcast/joyce-arthur-crisis-pregnancy-centres-in-canada)
I know
I’m being repetitive here, but how can anyone conclude anything
about a training regime from reading a website? This is clearly
impossible. But that doesn’t stop Arthur from making these false
allegations. In fact in CAPSS rebuttal of Arthur’s 2009 report,
Norton says this about the training for his organization’s two CPCs
(in Vancouver and Burnaby), which are normative for many or most
CAPSS centres:
“Our
charity begins with 21 hours of seminars provided by skilled
practitioners in their field of expertise.
As examples: a physician on abortion procedures, a registered nurse
or doctor on fetal development, a psychologist on counselling, an
adoption social worker on adoptions, and so on.
Following
these introductory seminars, in-service training happens under the
tutelage and supervision
of our CPC program directors. (For Ms. Arthur’s plant [undercover
“volunteer”], her mentor was a registered nurse.) After
completing reading assignments, and participating in dyad and triad
role plays, volunteers then observe (with client permission) peer
counseling sessions. Volunteers are observed in sessions before
assisting clients on their own.
Finally,
Exit Surveys (which are reviewed by the CPC program directors) are
made available to clients for evaluating the effectiveness and
sensitivity of their volunteer helper. All CAPSS affiliated centres
in Canada adhere to Best Practice training guidelines.
We
respectfully challenge Ms. Arthur to publicly disclose which centres
in British Columbia are allegedly providing training sessions of only
a “few hours” or “two to three weeks at most”. (Source:
Page 34 of CAPSS rebuttal)
This
completely contradicts Arthur’s allegations that volunteers are
untrained and/or simply biblically trained. I remind the reader that
Arthur received a copy of the CAPSS rebuttal quoted above. Still she
makes this stuff up.
And
once again, Arthur never disclosed which centres gave such poor
training, and she is now repeating these same false allegations to
the BCHA.
Birthright
also provides extensive training for volunteers. From their website:
“Training
for new Birthright volunteers starts with a full understanding of the
philosophy of Birthright as outlined in its Charter and Policy
Directives. New volunteers typically start by partnering with an
experienced volunteer who is able to answer questions and explain the
office operations. Volunteers are able to grow into their role in
Birthright at their own pace and develop their knowledge and skills
on an ongoing basis through continuous role-modeling with Birthright
peers, reading and discussion, and the annual Birthright
International conventions.
Providing
emotional support and practical help to women is always the first
priority of Birthright volunteers. After completing a training
program, volunteers are assigned a regular shift at the Birthright
office - usually 3-4 hours once a week - that suits the volunteers’
schedule for reliable commitment for a period of time. Volunteers
handle a variety of phone calls, including those from girls and women
who are overwhelmed about being pregnant or fear they may be
pregnant. Volunteers also help women who come to the office, whether
for a free pregnancy test, referrals and information or for a
welcoming friend. Some volunteers choose to help in other ways, such
as sorting and distributing maternity and baby clothes, cleaning the
office, gardening or administrative work. Experienced volunteers
often make presentations to school and community groups about
Birthright and its services.” (Source:
http://birthright.org/en/get-involved)
Once
again Arthur’s allegations are not based on fact.
Part 7 – General nonsense
Arthur:
“They
[CPCs] do provide misleading and inaccurate information,
pretty much all of them if not on their website
then in their brochures and in person.
They use ethically questionable counseling techniques.” Emphasis
added. (Source: Arthur’s podcast to BCHA
https://player.fm/series/bc-humanists-podcast/joyce-arthur-crisis-pregnancy-centres-in-canada)
Misleading
and inaccurate information on websites?
Not
true. By my evidence provided, we see that Arthur is making a
verifiable false allegation.
(To
remind the reader, I’ve provided in Section I the entire content –
verbatim – of the CAPSS client brochure pertaining to abortion
information, procedures and informed consent.)
Now
to this third and final false allegation by Arthur. As you will see,
Arthur also just makes this up:
“They [CPCs] do provide misleading and inaccurate information…’in
person’.”
“In
person”? By her own admission neither Arthur nor her volunteers
met any of the CPC staff, so in-person meetings never happened.
“Ethically
questionable counseling techniques”? How can Arthur say this when
by Arthur’s own admission, there was no personal contact with the
CPCs?
Another
problem with Arthur’s study is that she uses many resources from
American experiences of American CPCs, which have nothing to do with
Canadians CPCs. I have no idea whether the allegations regarding
American CPCs are true or not, and I suspect that most or all of them
are untrue. But Arthur’s allegations of guilt by association are
not evidence of anything.
Arthur:
“Many U.S.-based studies or investigative reports have been done
on American CPCs, and all have consistently exposed their tactics of
misinformation and deception. A few key ones are listed in the
References (City Attorney of San Francisco 2011; NAF 2006; NARAL
2015; SIECUS n.d.; VICE News 2014; Waxman 2006; Winter 2015a/b).”
(Source: Page 6 of Arthur’s 2016 report)
Here
Arthur makes conclusions about Canadian CPCs based on what supposedly
happens in American CPCs. I’m pretty sure these kinds of
conclusions would not merit the “scientific study” Arthur is
hoping for with her report.
Using Arthur’s ridiculous logic, she would (I
guess) believe that many of the abortion clinics in Canada are
questionable, unhygienic, and participate in illegal and criminal
activities. Including patient
deaths. Why? Because it is common knowledge
that dozens of abortion clinics have been shut down in their
respective states for such proven
incompetence and criminal practices.
Here are only a few examples of abortion clinic
violations, closed clinics, abortion related deaths, etc., in the
United States:
Abortion Industry Negligence Nationwide:
Highlighting the Most Egregious Offenses:
https://www.sba-list.org/negligence
Exposing Substandard Abortion Facilities: The
Pervasiveness of True “Back-Alley” Practices
http://www.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/exposing-substandard.pdf
And this one is my favourite. It is a 206-page
report:
UNSAFE - HOW THE PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS IN
AMERICA’S ABORTION CLINICS ENDANGERS WOMEN:
http://unsafereport.org/
The report identifies the top 10 violations of
American abortion clinics. Below is the description of only the first
violation. Then in the report itself, the offending clinics are
identified and which state they are in. There are 130 clinics for
this one violation alone. There are nine more violations, each one
with its own
list of clinics.
Violation
1
FAILURE
TO ENSURE A SAFE AND SANITARY ENVIRONMENT AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW
INFECTION CONTROL POLICIES
More
than 130 abortion providers in 22 states failed to follow established
infection control protocols. The implicated states include Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, New
Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Common violations included failure to
follow handing washing protocols, failure to convene infection
control committees, and refusal to develop infectious disease
protocols.
Other
Violations documented by state officials included:
- Quality assurance programs were not properly implemented.
- Autoclave and sterilization procedures were not followed.
- Clinics were generally “unclean,” including some where there was evidence of bloody drainage and fluids on exam tables.
- Dry blood and/or rust found on equipment.
- Instruments labeled as “sterilized,” but displaying rust and/or dried blood.
- Reusable equipment and instruments were not cleaned and sterilized.
- Contaminated syringe containers were stored incorrectly.
- The bodily remains of aborted children were stored in the same refrigerator as medications and/or food.
- Staff members in some facilities were unable to locate sterile suturing supplies and equipment.
- In a Chicago abortion clinic, a recovery room technician was observed retrieving a paper towel from the garbage and using the same paper towel to cover a tray that would later serve food to patients.
Patients were further exposed to unsanitary
conditions by improper water temperatures for laundry, sterilizers
not being cleaned monthly, single-use vials being used multiple times
and on different patients, vaginal probes not being disinfected
between uses, and infectious waste not stored or disposed of
properly.
Then follows seven more pages of abortion
clinics who failed this one
violation.
Here are the remainder nine violations. I’ll
spare the reader all the details, and just list the violation itself:
2.
FAILURE TO ACCURATELY DOCUMENT PATIENT RECORDS AND KEEP PATIENT MEDICAL INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL
3.
FAILURE TO ENSURE STAFF ARE PROPERLY TRAINED FOR DUTIES
4.
UNLICENSED/UNQUALIFIED/UNTRAINED STAFF PROVIDING PATIENT CARE
5.
EXPIRED MEDICATIONS AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES
6.
FAILURE TO PURCHASE AND MAINTAIN REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
7.
FAILURE TO ADOPT, FOLLOW, AND/OR PERIODICALLY REVIEW HEALTH AND
SAFETY PROTOCOLS
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)