It’s the oldest story out there. Been there, done that. And yet, when some “enterprising” reporter gets it in his head that he wants to “expose” a crisis pregnancy centre, because he himself is pro-choice and has a foregone conclusion on what abortion counseling should look like, we’re supposed to believe it’s an exciting story.
I’m talking about this, which I just received via Twitter. CTV sent a fake client to a crisis pregnancy centre in British Columbia.
I don’t know what the pregnancy centre said, or precisely what advice they gave. I’m assuming they spoke of legitimate links to harm the result of abortion.
I do know that there are many adverse outcomes to abortion that our pro-choice media chooses to ignore.
To not give full information is to leave women open to the very real possibility that they will have more than regrets–maybe pick up an alcohol or drug habit, perhaps lose their relationship, experience suicide ideation, or suicide. Remember Emma Beck, a young woman who committed suicide after having an abortion. Oh wait, don’t remember her, because her experience is not what counts. She should have just bucked up! Turned that frown upside down! My oh my. To actually experience pain after an abortion. What a loser.
That is, in effect, what those who despise crisis pregnancy centres are saying. They want to claim that the women who lose their own lives after abortion don’t matter. They want to make out like it’s all a big deception–saying negative things about abortion. We have a pro-choice legal system, university profs, healthcare system, public funding model–if crisis pregnancy centres don’t exist to counter this, who will?
The irony here of course is that pro-choice agencies do little pre-abortion counselling at all. When they do, they too will say things like “sometimes some women have a poor reaction.” They have to, of course, because even if the American Psychological Association bungles their statement on abortion, there are, still, negative psychological outcomes after abortion hidden in their positively framed statement. Plus, the reality is out there, by women’s lived experience. When pro-choice agencies choose to ignore this or downplay it, it should be as egregious a failing as crisis pregnancy centres exaggerating the harm.
Another point I’d make is that pro-choice agencies rarely see the outcomes of their advice. Those women who do suffer don’t go back there for counselling after the fact. A woman who tries to commit suicide ends up in a hospital emergency, not Planned Parenthood.
This is about the ideological divide, at the end of the day, and not the actual words the crisis pregnancy centre spoke. In truly unbiased terms, one side ignores adverse outcomes to abortion and the other talks about them. Crisis pregnancy centres should not be targeted for doing the latter, given the euphemisms that pro-choicers use daily.
The media is responsible for disseminating information, something they have utterly failed to do on the topic of abortion. This does all women a disservice.
CTV’s report isn’t out yet, which is why the title of this post has a question mark. The reporter’s name is Jon Woodward. I haven’t seen the show (no one has) so I can’t know for sure what they will do.
When it does come out, I’ll watch with great interest. And if the result is actually a sting attack, using information obtained through fraudulent means and bolstered by the reporter’s own ideological bias, then I will call 416-384-5000 (Bell Media) and ask to be put through to the viewer complaints/relations line, and you should too.
by 
I’ll be interested to see the story and am awaiting CTV’s release of ‘their side’.
Ever since Lila Rose’ successful sting operations exposing some of what goes on at Planned Parenthood, we have been expecting the “Poor-Choice” side to eventually attempt a similar undercover operation in a Crisis Pregnancy Centre. But let me be clear on the distinction between what Lila Rose reported, and what seems to be suggested here:
Lila Rose showed that some Planned Parenthood staffers ignored their legal duty to report criminal activity. On the other hand (and without more details) it sounds like CTV has ‘exposed’ that a Crisis Pregnancy staffer is guilty of disseminating facts – that abortion is not neutral and that it may result in medical, psychological or physical distress to the patient. The Poor-Choice side might take issue with this since they ignore science and continue to claim that abortion is as trivial as having a mole removed. But there is certainly nothing criminal in a staffer disseminating information so a patient can make an informed choice.
CTV and the media are exposing themselves as being more interested in propagating their personal bias than in true investigative reporting. For did CTV conduct a second undercover sting operation in a “Women’s Reproductive Health” facility to see how or even whether the other side disseminates all relevant information? This is, of course, a rhetorical question, since we all know the answer….
Hello,
For the life of me I do not understand why a “Crisis Pregnancy Center” has any obligation to counsel a woman on abortion. Isn’t that Planned Parenthood’s job or some Pro Choice organization or a doctor? Just the term “Crisis Pregnancy Center” loaded with bins and bins of mommy and baby clothes is self evident.
CTV absolutely sucks on this reporting and shows a gross media bias which I find so disgusting. I don’t know who Jon Woodward is. I can’t find this story on CTV News website to voice my disgust for this reporting. But, should I find a place to do so I will certainly rail against this creep.
Where I come from where a young pregnant woman comes into a Pregnancy Crisis Center they get help with having the baby, provided with clothing for themselves and the baby, are helped with referrals for an ob/gyn and are encouraged to not be afraid. CTV’s reporting on this center is an invasion of privacy and journalistic entrapment meant to do both the center and the mother to be harm. Woodward should be denounced for the hack he is.
@Liz: the program is not out yet, so let’s wait to denounce anyone and see what airs.
Andrea,
“It’s the oldest story out there. Been there, done that. And yet, when some “enterprising” reporter gets it in his head that he wants to “expose” a crisis pregnancy centre, because he himself is pro-choice and has a foregone conclusion on what abortion counseling should look like, we’re supposed to believe it’s an exciting story.”
Didn’t you just write this from the little material you saw? So, you basically are denouncing Jon Woodward as a biased pro-choice reporter and the program has not aired.
I’m supposed to wait until the program airs before denouncing him while you can denounce him on principle alone, which is what I did?
Is this a pro-woman/pro-life site or should I expect every post from now on to be censored?
Just need to know how often I will be told to keep my trap shut and when and about what?
You didn’t wait to denounce him on principle and neither will I. I will definitely be posting on the CTV News site as soon as I can.
Liz, hate to say this, but if you can’t be more polite in your communications, then you will certainly find yourself censored from this site. And it won’t have anything to do with your views.
God gave us the right too choose..badly or correctly..the CTV report was right on..it was the abortion counsellor who was biased and proven to be..Shame on you.
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120116/bc_ctv_investigates_pregnancy_options_1_120116/20120117/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
This is the link to the CTV report in conversation above, may I suggest you assume the responsibility of reviewing it before adding your personal comments, as I have done.
Even I, a mature woman with many years of life experience behind me would upon seeing an advertisement or billboard stating, PREGNANCY OPTIONS, assume that by entrusting my situation and psychological welfare in trust that I would expect to receive un-biased information on the OPTIONS available to me to make an undisputed difficult decision. After viewing the report yesterday and reviewing the written report again today, it is clear to me that your organization, although perfectly within your rights to further your agenda, do so in what I perceive to be a rather deceitful manner. You provide an abundance of ” cautionary ” advise on the dangers of abortion which have fortunately not existed in the modern world since the legalization of abortion and hence the abolishment of unsafe back-alley procedures, which indeed often were performed with dire circumstances. I have no statistics to argue, but the fact remains that live births also carry a degree of medical risk, no doubt in the same percentage as a medically performed abortion. I believe it is exemplary that you provide support to women choosing to bring there pregnancies to term, and I suggest that you could consider changing your profile to make it clear that that is in fact the only OPTION you support. By continuing to present yourself otherwise, and continuing to lure women in crisis into your establishment on the premise of recieving available OPTIONS, and then proceeding to use scare tactics and psychological shaming in an attempt to fashion society as you wish it to be, is unconscionable and opportunistic, to say the least.
YOU are biased, have the courage to admit it and reflect that opinion in your literature.
Hi Alix and welcome
From your comment it appears you believe this blog is associated with the Crisis Pregnancy Centre in question. However, this blog is a separate entity and merely reports on topical stories in the news and such (hence the reference to the CTV news report). And this blog has never claimed to be anything but Pro-Life so there is no literature or otherwise that needs to be re-stated here.
As for the other, I too read the report and watched the clip. You’ll note that unlike the undercover operations that Lila Rose conducted of Planned Parenthood agencies in the US, CTV states that staff “seemed genuinely concerned about her well-being. They asked about her background, the circumstances of the pregnancy, and if she had been abused. They offered referrals to hospitals for any sexually transmitted diseases and said that she was not alone struggling with a tough decision.”. At Planned Parenthood they suggested ways to cover up abuse and criminal activity. So this agency did nothing ‘illegal’ whereas Planned Parenthood agencies in the US have been shown to have criminal activity in a number of circumstances….yet CTV did not choose to do a second undercover operation at a Canadian PP agency. I would suggest that the bias that CTV exhibits is every bit as obvious as the bias that this CPC exhibits.
Also, CTV reports that “Both centres went through a brochure that discussed fetal development, adoption and abortion, and when the option of abortion was brought up, staff members spent a long time discussing the risks.” Well would you look at that – they gave information about all 3 options. Can’t say as I have ever heard Planned Parenthood giving a brochure that says that having a baby and/or giving one up for adoption are viable options.
Did the staff spend more time discussing risks than Planned Parenthood does? Absolutely. Do such risks occur? Absolutely. Is Planned Parenthood honest about the risks that are possible? Not even remotely.
I spent many years working side-by-side with trained genetic counselors at one of the pre-eminent Children’s hospitals in southern Ontario. And let me tell you this, even with all of their medical training and degrees behind them, their counseling was NOT non-directive. They emphasized risks and downplayed optimism to an extent that I found uncomfortable. Were they suggestive? Absolutely. And yet their mandate, especially in the hospital environment, is that they be completely non-directive. Let me assure you….it is not so.
So, would I expect any more from someone at a Crisis Pregnancy Centre? In a perfect world, perhaps. But realistically, if medically trained personnel let their bias come through and lean towards one option while they are counseling, then I guess a staffer at a Crisis Pregnancy Centre might be expected to do the same.
Live births carry risks. The Crisis Pregnancy Centre never claimed otherwise. Abortions carry risks. The CPC discussed these.
Did they lean towards supporting a woman in a crisis situation and helping her through her pregnancy. Yup. I think that is what a Crisis Pregnancy Centre is supposed to do – Help you *with and during* your crisis pregnancy If you just want to be un-pregnant, then go to Morgentaler.
Cynthia–what a comment. Bang on. May I cut and paste and make it into a post to draw further attention to it? Loved reading it!
(Also thanks for the defence of PWPL. No, we don’t have anything to do with CPCs, other than being glad there is a place to go for women in need. Some of the most generous, concerned people I know work in CPCs. I suspect this lame investigation will only streamline them more, and make them better, more professional places. But the level of compassion will remain the same, so bingo, that will be a great place for women to go. Anyways, you are right, PWPL has no hidden bias! Gosh. almost four years of blogging–“hidden agenda” is something I can never be accused of.)
I think all these comments have been around for centuries and been in and out of courts for years..PRO- Choice..leave it at that..no one should abuse the option to terminate a pregnancy..but we should have a choice.
If you feel abortion is wrong by all means have the baby..if not seek an abortion..no one should be made to feel guilty about a personal choice such as this one..
Alix,
When you watched the CTV clips and their reports on their website alone, you may concluded that CPCs are biased in their presentation of OPTIONS. One may have such conclusion because CTV’s report has not been truthful when they shape their story according to their agenda.
When you try to take a closer look at the websites of the respective CPCs being reported, you will see that their presentation of the 3 OPTIONS are quite fair. And they do have disclaimer on their front page to let people know that they do not refer for abortions. So, when someone willingly go to their centres for help, they can’t say that they are being lured into the centre.
Also, the ” cautionary ” advise on the dangers of abortion are quite real. Even done in modern hospital, it does not mean women would not experience complications after their abortions or bear no risks. I personally have a friend who had gone through an abortion and has suffered much physical complications and emotional distress. The risks listed on the CPC websites are quite true.
I am not sure why CTV have not interviewed those real clients who have been helped in these centres. If they do, maybe it will paint a different picture.