Guardian smears ‘pro-life’ charities
'Pro-choice’ (ie pro-abortion) charities in cahoots with The Guardian ought to come as no surprise. But the newspaper’s recent collaboration with ‘Education for Choice’ in a recent article by Ben Quinn is a nasty and malicious piece of work. The charity apparently conducted a ‘mystery shopper’ survey of a number of Crisis Pregnancy Centres or Independent Pregnancy Advice Centres, and (surprise, surprise) found them to be deficient. They sent their findings to The Guardian, who obligingly published.
But in the absence of any actual evidence, His Grace is tempted to say that this story is nothing but a vicious hatchet job based upon grossly exaggerated incidents and wildly distorted ‘evidence’. Under the guise of a neutral presentation of facts, what we have is nothing short of a blatant attempt to discredit LIFE and shut down all abortion counselling which might provide so much as a whiff of ‘pro-life’ information to women considering termination of their pregnancies.
The article (which has been updated and amended) is now entitled ‘Abortion: pregnancy counselling centres found wanting’, with the strap line: ‘Evidence of poor practice and factually incorrect advice discovered following undercover investigation’. But one gets the distinct impression that this is an a priori case of the results preceding the research: a ‘pro-choice’ charity investigating a ‘pro-life’ charity is, of course, going to be neutral and fair: about as fair as a Labour-funded and socialist-staffed investigation into the benefits of living under a Conservative government. And so we read in the opening paragraph:
Women receiving advice from pregnancy counselling centres run by faith-based and anti-abortion organisations are subjected to scaremongering, emotive language and inaccurate information about abortion, according to an undercover investigation by a pro-choice charity.The objective is manifestly to bolster the dominant position of abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). God forbid that their baby-murdering monopoly might be subject to a little competition from ‘independent’ organisations. We further read:
A survey of 10 centres operated by Christian and anti-abortion organisations found evidence in most of them of poor practice and factually incorrect advice, while the quality of counselling differs widely. Advice ranged from scaremongering – linking abortion with breast cancer, for example – to actions apparently designed to steer women away from abortion, such as showing them baby clothes and talking about "the child".But His Grace finds this absolutely incredible:
At a Life centre in Covent Garden, London, the undercover researcher was given a leaflet entitled Abortions – How they're Done, which said incorrectly that 85% of abortions are carried out using vacuum aspiration. It stated that "the unborn child is sucked down the tube" and that "the woman should wear some protection. She has to dispose of the corpse."So, The Guardian is content to publish a story accusing LIFE of producing leaflets which say the woman has to dispose of the corpse? Has Ben Quinn seen this leaflet? Could His Grace please see it? It smacks of the sort of vile propaganda not infrequently directed towards the Jews – you know, the child-killing and baby eating sort designed to inculcate a degree of sub-human barbarism.
LIFE are, of course, members of the BACP (British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy) and so obliged to provide non-judgmental, non-directive factual information about abortion. That can and should include the potential mental and emotional consequences of the procedure. And His Grace can see no reason at all why the terms ‘baby’ and ‘child’ should be prohibited. While this might irk charities like Education for Choice, it is an appalling omission by many ‘pro-choice’ charities that they simply do not present a woman with the alternatives – simply because it is not in their financial interests to do so.
The British abortion industry slaughters 572 babies every day. It is not only booming; the business is as safe and secure as that of tax collectors and undertakers: abortion-providing companies make millions of pounds from the taxpayer through NHS referral. Presently, the Government only funds abortion providers (Marie Stopes, BPAS) if the abortion proceeds. And yet it is these same providers which are entrusted to counsel vulnerable and often emotional women before the procedure is carried out. Unlike the rest of Europe, there is presently no requirement in British law for women to be informed about the alternatives, like adoption.
LIFE are naturally concerned about the Guardian report, and yet the corroborating evidence has not been adduced. Is it video footage? Audio recording? Written notes? Was it one isolated unprofessional counsellor or a systematic breakdown? What was the methodological approach for this research? Is it fair and valid? Could the results be replicated? It is impossible to come to any reasoned judgements about this without knowing what the evidence consists of. In its absence, Ben Quinn has provided us with nothing but a polemic of Education for Choice employees’ feelings (yes, it was all done in-house) with no other objective but to smear LIFE and remove them from the Government’s Sexual Health Forum.
This makes Mr Quinn more a propagandist for ‘pro-choice’ organisations than a professional journalist. It is even more interesting that LIFE’s attempts to elicit the evidence from Mr Quinn have been fruitless. Surely, since he wrote the article, he must be in possession of the evidence, yet he has referred LIFE to Education for Choice, which, he says, is ‘an organisation of good repute’ and he is ‘satisfied about the integrity of its work’. The response of EFC has simply been that they will make their report available ‘soon’.
Education for Choice are nothing to do with choice. They say of themselves: ‘EFC calls for: Young people to have the facts about abortion, whoever they are, whoever they ask, wherever they go.’ Where’s the ‘choice’ in that? Where is any presentation of the alternatives? Do ‘all the facts’ include the mental, emotional and spiritual issues? Education for Choice is a blatant misnomer and purposeful deception: it is as objectionable as any inculcation of religious belief under the guise of scientific inquiry.
His Grace would very much like to hear from Education for Choice. He would be pleased to receive copies of the video footage and/or audio recordings with full transcripts in order that the methodology may be examined and the validity of the results assessed. And he may well be tempted to set up his own ‘mystery shopper’ survey to establish just how much of a choice Education for Choice actually provides to pregnant women. For he more than half suspects that Ben Quinn has been duped. But then, he does write for The Guardian, and so is possibly quite content to be so.