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 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