The banner on Health Canada’s Canadian Health Network website reads “Health information you can trust.” But when it comes to the information presented in the Sexuality and Reproductive Health section, health and truth seem to be getting mixed up with politics and propaganda.

By Barbara McAdorey

“The term “propaganda” covers all deliberate action taken with the intent to persuade a number of persons to do or think what the propagandist wishes. […] An attempt by one individual to persuade another to buy a motor car is not propaganda in the ordinary sense. Propaganda is addressed to groups of people, or to nations. […] It is of the essence of propaganda that it should influence persons to do or to think things which they would not do or think if left to themselves.” — Richard S. Lambert, “Propaganda,” 1938.

“Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. We do not advocate abortion over birth - we simply defend the right of women to decide for themselves.” — Joyce Arthur of Pro-Choice Action Network, from “What Pro-Choice Really Means,” www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/realchoice.html

Case:

Jane has just found out she’s pregnant. She’s scared, unsure of what to do, afraid her parents will find out. She’s wondering if abortion would be the easiest way to solve her problem — although, she doesn’t really like the idea of abortion. Maybe there’s another way out of this, she thinks with a glimmer of hope. She needs answers.

She knows there’s a lot of controversy surrounding abortion — the “pro-choicers” say one thing, the “pro-lifers” say something else — and she doesn’t want to get bogged down in all of that. She just wants to find information about all her options, and she wants it from a source she can trust. Once she’s informed, then she’ll decide what to do. So she sits down at her computer and connects to the Internet to see what she can learn.

It doesn’t take long for Jane to discover a lot of conflicting ideas about abortion. She finds “pro-life” sites and “pro-choice” sites; she finds information about those who are “pro-abortion” and those who are “anti-choice”; and she reads the hurtful things people say about each other on both sides of the abortion debate.

What should she believe? Jane is becoming more confused and anxious, and she’s wondering why it’s so hard to just find out the truth.

Then she stumbles upon the Canadian Health Network website, sponsored by Health Canada (www.canadian-health-network.ca). The banner on the site reads “Health information you can trust.” At last!

Jane is further convinced she’s at the right site when she reads the CHN’s mission statement:

CHN’s mission is to support Canadians in making informed choices about their health, by providing access to multiple sources of credible and practical e-health information

and the CHN core values:

• To maintain health information as a public good
• To not recreate existing health information
• To present quality, credible, and practical information from multiple perspectives
• To be socially-inclusive and respectful of diversity
• To exemplify ethics and integrity

Great! She’ll be presented with all the facts for all the options, with no preaching, no bias, in a respectful manner. She’ll come away knowing everything necessary to make an informed decision!

CHN search results for “abortion”

Jane conducts searches on “abortion” and “abortion counselling” and this is some of the information she finds:

• Abortion is a very safe procedure with a complication rate of only 1.1%. (“Abortion: The Medical Procedure,” Childbirth by Choice Trust, www.cbctrust.com/medproc.html)
• 70% of abortions are performed before 8 weeks gestation. (“Prenatal Development,” Childbirth by Choice Trust, www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html)
• No conclusive evidence that abortion causes breast cancer. (“’No Relationship’: Say Researchers of Suggested Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer,” www.cbctrust.com/breastcancer.html)
• The predominant psychological response to abortion is relief. Some women feel sad or guilty initially but those feelings are usually mild and don’t last long. (“Abortion: The Medical Procedure,” Childbirth by Choice Trust)
• She should not go to a Catholic hospital if she wants counselling for a crisis pregnancy. (“Information for Teens About Abortion,” Childbirth by Choice Trust, www.cbctrust.com/homepage.html)
• Drawings comparing the development of the human embryo to that of a guinea pig and a monkey; drawings of the fetal face (...which Jane thinks look sort of like lumpy blobs...) showing Maxillary swelling and Mandibular swelling with no explanation of what this means. (“Prenatal Development,” Childbirth by Choice Trust, www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html)

Information linked by a CHN collaborator

Jane is thinking she is getting some credible information (...unconcerned about the lack of explanation for “Maxillary” and “Mandibular”). She’s still searching, though, and continues to dig a little deeper.

She finds another website linked by two websites she had reached from the CHN website. She feels confident about trusting the information on this organization’s site, not just because it is linked by organizations collaborating with CHN, but also because these people say they have a close working relationship with a CHN collaborator.

This is some of what Jane learns from this site:

• Those who oppose abortion are anti-choice, and almost all of them are fundamentalist Protestants, devout Catholics, and misogynistic men. (“Religious Basis of Anti-Choice Movement,” by Joyce Arthur, www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/01autumn.html)
• Anti-choicers oppose abortion, not because they are interested in saving babies, but because, primarily, they want to oppress women which is justified by their religion. And secondly, anti-choicers want the baby to be baptized (which can only happen if it’s not aborted) so that it can have a chance of eventually going to heaven. Anti-choicers have no other interest in babies once they are born, if they are poor or suffering, because as long as the baby is baptized, they don’t care about anything else. Another possible reason the Catholic Church is against abortion is because it wants to keep its membership levels up to maintain its influence on the world and its wealth. And the Fundamentalist Protestants are supposed to proselytize and convert as many souls to Christ as possible, so aborting a fetus is a waste— there’s one less potential follower they can get for Jesus. (“Religious views on the Fetus” and “Woman's Place in the Christian bedroom” by Joyce Arthur, www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/01autumn.html)
• The anti-choice agenda is anti-woman, anti-child, and lacks respect for all women. (“The Truth About Anti-Abortion Advertising,” 1999, Pro-Choice Action Network, www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/anti-truth.html)
• LifeCanada and Campaign Life Coalition are anti-choice groups. (“How to Interpret Polls on Abortion,” Joyce Arthur, www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/abortion-polls.html; and “A Word of Advice to Anti-Choicers: Know Your Enemy,” Joyce Arthur, www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/anti-advice.html)

...Jane makes a mental note to stay clear of those two organizations!...

• Abortion rights are fundamentally moral and necessary; and they are a sign of women’s worth and equality, stronger families, healthier and happier children, and a more civilized society. (“How to Interpret Polls on Abortion,” www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/abortion-polls.html)
Those who oppose abortion (most
• of whom are devout Christians) are religious fanatics who cannot empathize with people who hold a view different than their own. This breeds hate crimes and war. And they spread wrong information based on ignorance and intolerance. Pro-choicers see the anti-choicers as uninformed, sexist, and cruel. (“A Word of Advice to Anti-Choicers,” www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/anti-advice.html)

Wait a second, Jane thinks to herself as she stops reading. How did we go from health information on abortion, and statistics, and counselling options, to all this mumbo jumbo about religion and rights and oppression, she wonders? And what’s this stuff got to do with health, anyway?

Jane is now more confused than ever. She sighs in exasperation, turns off her computer, and has a good cry.

Analysis:

Omitted from CHN search on “abortion”

Jane has found only a small subset of what exists on the Internet regarding abortion. Here are some examples of what she did not find because CHN does not link to them:

• In 1992-93, according to Statistics Canada’s hospitalization database, the rate of hospitalization for life-threatening complications arising from abortions was 3.8%, almost 4 times higher than the 1.1% figure Jane found. (“One in 25 Women Hospitalized after Abortion,” The Interim, May 2000, lifesite.net/interim/2000/may)
• As of 2003, 29 out of 39 studies show that women who had an induced abortion have an increased risk of developing breast cancer. (The Polycarp Research Institute, www.polycarp.org/overviewabortionbreastcancer.htm); and a website with information about the link between abortion and breast cancer (www.abortionbreastcancer.com)
• A website containing research results, testimonials, articles, and resources on the aftereffects of abortion. (The Elliot Institute, www.afterabortion.org)
• A website (neither pro-life nor pro-choice) about post-abortion healing where those who are suffering the effects of an abortion can share their stories. (www.afterabortion.com)
• A website where “girls share the truth about their unexpected pregnancies.” Contains information on prenatal development and embryoscopic and 3D/4D ultrasound photos (not drawings); includes testimonials from girls who kept their babies and those who aborted. (www.standupgirl.com)

Why would there be such a discrepancy between what Jane did find and what she did not? And what about all those ad hominem attacks against pro-lifers? What has happened to the “quality, credible, and practical information from multiple perspectives” and the “ethics and integrity” CHN promised?

CHN Affiliates

What has happened is that Jane has failed to notice that each subject area on the Canadian Health Network website is controlled by an Affiliate defined by CHN as follows:

Affiliates are recognized Canadian organizations who are the content specialists for CHN. Affiliates manage the work related to building and maintaining the CHN collection by selecting resources for their specific topics, and they promote the CHN within their own fields of expertise. Working with other organizations in their topic areas, Affiliates review and choose quality resources, building and maintaining a collection of e-based health information for the CHN web site. In addition, Affiliates develop Frequently Asked Questions for their topic areas, prepare feature articles and respond to health information requests.

The Affiliate for the topic of Sexuality and Reproductive Health (which includes abortion) is Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada (PPFC).

Among other things, PPFC is an advocate of abortion rights.

It is unclear why Health Canada would select an abortion rights group as the leading expert on health issues related to abortion when rights have more to do with politics and law than with health.

Does Health Canada believe that a smokers’ rights group is the leading authority on health issues related to smoking and should become the Affiliate for CHN’s Tobacco section (which currently does not appear to have an expert assigned to it)? After all, a smokers’ rights group is pro-choice on the issue of smoking— it would support a person’s right to choose either to smoke or to not smoke, without imposing the view that one choice is better than the other.

Conflict of Interest?

Or does Health Canada think that such a group (which advocates smoking as a valid choice) might be biased in its selection of which information it chooses to present to the public when it comes to the health risks associated with tobacco use? Could such a group be trusted to disseminate information which might cast smoking in a negative light? In fact, would such a smoking rights group even be all that interested in keeping informed about the latest research showing possible health risks associated with smoking? Is it possible that such a group might rationalize away negative effects of smoking because it supports the right to choose to engage in that behaviour?

Is it possible a conflict of interest could arise when a group which supports a right to a controversial behaviour becomes the arbiter of any and all health information related to that behaviour?

It is not unreasonable to suspect that a group which supports a right to a controversial behaviour might be biased towards downplaying the negative risks associated with that behaviour. After all, support for that activity might decline, possibly jeopardizing rights. And so, intentional or not, this group would have an incentive to present to the public the most positive and/or neutral information it can find and censor anything which might erode public support for that behaviour.

But this does not prove the organization will be biased. So let’s look at the evidence.

Evidence of Bias

When Jane did her search on “abortion,” she got 28 hits (links to articles relating to abortion on CHN’s own website and on websites of other organizations). Almost all of the links pointed directly or indirectly to “pro-choice” organizations including, but not limited to, Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada and its affiliates; Childbirth By Choice Trust (CBC Trust); and Canadian Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL). There were no links to any pro-life organizations. Most organizations listed were staunch supporters of abortion rights.

Why?

Because PPFC, being CHN’s Affiliate for this topic, decides which organizations will be linked via CHN and which ones will not.

Criteria for Inclusion

According to information obtained in March, the criteria an organization must satisfy in order to be linked from CHN’s website under the topic of Sexual and Reproductive Health include:

• Demonstrated area of expertise and relevant content in a subject related to sexuality and reproductive health
• Demonstrated commitment to the promotion of sexual and reproductive health and rights and the prevention of problems
• Demonstrated commitment to freedom of choice in decision-making about sexuality and reproductive health.
• Website presence with timely and credible information on health promotion, disease prevention, self care or health system performance

Under these criteria, any pro-life organization will be excluded, because “reproductive rights” is understood to include abortion rights; and “freedom of choice” is understood to include the freedom to choose abortion. No matter how credible, reliable, unbiased, timely, and important a piece of information might be when it comes to women’s health and abortion, the Canadian Health Network will not link to it if it is on a pro-life site, according to this criteria.

Does this mean that Health Canada has a greater interest in advocating abortion rights than in promoting women’s health?

Specific Examples of Bias

Abortion Research

Based on the research and findings of more than 500 books and scientific papers, the book Women’s Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence by Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles, published in 2002 by the deVeber Institute of Bioethics and Social Research, is a comprehensive report of the health risks associated with abortion. It appears that none of the “pro-choice” websites linked by CHN recommend this book or link to the deVeber Institute’s website, www.deveber.org.

Nor do the “pro-choice” websites appear to mention a study1 conducted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario which found that for 41,039 women who had induced abortions,
...in the three-month period after the abortion, the hospital patients had a more than four-times higher rate of hospitalizations for infections (6.3 vs. 1.4 per 1000), a five-times higher rate of ‘surgical events’ (8.2 vs 1.6 per 1000), and a nearly five times higher rate of hospitalization for psychiatric problems (5.2 vs. 1.1 per 1000), than the matching group of women who had not had abortions.2

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is not a pro-life organization, so one cannot claim that the results are due to a pro-life bias on the part of the researchers. (Such charges are typical when a researcher who is known to be pro-life reports research results showing health risks associated with abortion—see “Women Deserve Our Best, Not Our Bias,” p. 2)

Even the Canadian Mental Health Association (not a pro-life organization) makes reference to the results of a study3 which showed that women who have had multiple abortions are significantly more prone to developing postpartum depression. But this is not mentioned on any of the “pro-choice” sites linked by CHN.

Dr. Josefsson, the lead researcher in this study, notes that cause and effect conclusions cannot be drawn — for example, whatever predisposes a woman to have multiple abortions may also predispose her to develop postpartum depression. But even this is important to know — it would mean that multiple abortions could be a warning sign of future problems for this woman, something her doctor/social worker should be aware of in order to help put necessary supports in place sooner.

So either way, the existence of a relationship is an important finding, and further research is needed to more fully understand the nature of this relationship (assuming we care about the prevention/treatment of postpartum depression in women). Says Dr. Josefsson, “...the finding is of interest in the daily work at the antenatal care units and something to look further into.”4

The same researcher, in a follow-up study5 found that children of women who have suffered postpartum depression have more behaviour problems than children of non-depressed mothers. This means a multiply aborted woman’s future children may be at increased risk of developing behaviour problems. More studies are needed to discover the nature of this relationship.

One would hope Health Canada would consider this important information to share with the scientific community in order to encourage researchers to do follow-up studies.

One has to ask why — if Health Canada and PPFC are concerned about women’s health, and indeed do support women’s freedom to choose abortion — then why do they not want to tell women about research which shows that abortion is associated with increased health risks for some women? Granted, studies sometimes result in contradictory findings. But that is no reason to censor the ones that reveal something unpleasant about abortion. Rather, any valid study, whatever the results, should be presented fairly. Then women can freely decide what to do with that information.

Abortion Statistics

Child Birth by Choice Trust’s brochure, “Abortion: The Medical Procedure” (www.cbctrust.com/medproc.html) says that the complication rate for abortion is about 1.1%. But this is misleading. The actual rate is significantly higher, according to researcher Isabelle Bégin, and reported by The Interim in May, 2000. This 1.1 % figure, which comes from Statistics Canada, does not cover clinic abortions and covers only 75% of hospital abortions (the remaining hospitals do not report complications.) And those hospitals which do report, only report immediate complications, so any complication requiring re-admission would not be linked to the abortion. But Ms. Bégin obtained a custom tabulation which comes from Statistics Canada’s hospitalization database. It covers all admissions and flags if admission is due to abortion complication. For the year 1993, the custom tabulation showed that the rate of complications requiring hospitalization was 3.8%, or about 1 in 25 women, almost four times higher than the figure often quoted by abortion rights groups.

Prenatal Development

CHN’s bias here is chilling. Not only does the user who searches for “abortion” easily find CBC Trust’s brochure “Prenatal Development” (www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html — the brochure is not directly presented to the user who searches on “abortion”, but CBC Trust’s website is, which contains the brochure), but even a user who searches for “prenatal development” on CHN’s website will be hit first by the link to this document!

This is the brochure Jane discovered which draws a comparison between the human and the guinea pig and monkey. How is the development of guinea pigs and monkeys relevant to a discussion on human prenatal development? This is also the brochure which confused Jane with the fetal face drawings showing “Frontal prominence, Maxillary swelling, Mandibular swelling,” terms not used, let alone explained, in the text of the brochure. So what is their purpose?

Dr. Jerome Rosenberg, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Alabama says in “Knowledge, compassion and commitment to truth and integrity” that dehumanization is “a systematic process of stripping the victims of the sense of and image of humanity and therefore making it easier to treat them as subhumans.”6 Throughout history, governments have dehumanized “the enemy” by using comparisons to animals in propaganda campaigns in order to persuade the masses it was OK to enslave or kill them — in the earlier part of the last century, Americans dehumanized the Japanese and African-Americans by comparing them to apes; the Nazis dehumanized the Jews by comparing them to vermin.

Dehumanization may not have been CBC Trust’s intentions. But once this organization realizes dehumanization is the effect these images can have, it is hoped that CBC Trust will update this brochure with appropriate photographs to give a more accurate representation of the unborn and dispense with the animal comparisons. This will have the added benefit of being more informative and less confusing to the reader.

Contrast CHN search results on “prenatal development” with the results obtained when searching using Google (a common Internet search engine). The first hit is a pro-life site’s webpage (www.abortionfacts.com/fetal_development/prenatal_ developement.asp) containing descriptions and photos of prenatal development. The second hit is a slide presentation from Weber State University (http://departments.weber.edu/chfam/Prenatal/default.htm) showing coloured photos at each developmental stage. This is not a pro-life site. These photos are fascinating.

Are the people who control the Canadian Health Network not aware of the existence of photographs of prenatal life? There is no comparison between the information presented by these sites (and many others) and the information in CBC Trust’s brochure when it comes to describing and realistically portraying in utero human development.

CBC Trust’s brochure on prenatal development also states that 70% of abortions have taken place by 8 weeks gestation, but there is no source reference for this statistic. Assuming the information is based on the statistics from 1993 (the accompanying graph in the brochure shows the breakdown by gestational age for abortions in 1993), then it conflicts with what is published in Statistics Canada’s Therapeutic Abortions 1995: Catalogue number 82-219-XPB for 1993, namely, 40.6% of clinic abortions were done under 9 weeks gestation, and 35.5% of hospital abortions. According to Stats Canada, most abortions occur between 9 and 12 weeks (41.5% of clinic abortions, and 53.4% of hospital abortions), not under 8 weeks as CBC Trust maintains.

Religious and Philosophic Discrimination

The Canadian Health Network claims to be a “multi-layered collaboration between major health organizations across Canada and Health Canada” and the CHN website links to hundreds of such organizations.

One would think, then, that a Canadian health organization whose “concern is for health in all its aspects: physical, emotional, spiritual, and social” and “encourages all activities destined to promote wellness, prevent disease, and cure sickness” and commits to “work openly and earnestly, in both official languages, with all people in our society” would be an organization CHN would collaborate with.

Not so. For this organization is the Catholic Health Association of Canada (CHAC) (www.chac.ca), and it opposes induced abortion.

CHAC argues that the constitutional right to abortion has never been established in Canada. Responding to Henry Morgentaler’s December 4, 2002, statement that Canadian hospitals should end any affiliation with religious organizations because they interfere with the “reproductive rights of Canadian women,” CHAC issued a press release arguing that a constitutional right to abortion has never been established in Canada. “The Supreme Court of Canada created a legal vacuum in 1988 when it struck down the law against abortion,” said CHAC in its press release. “The Court did not decide that there is a constitutional right to have an abortion or that governments have an obligation to provide abortion services.”

CHN also fails to link or reference any of the Project Rachel centres which exist across the country. Founded in 1984 in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee by Vicki Thorn, Project Rachel is the post-abortion healing ministry of the Catholic Church, with centres across Canada and the US, open to anyone who is suffering the anguish of abortion. As reported in the article, “Project Rachel: Vicki Thorn’s Post-Abortion Ministry” in the January, 2002 issue of St. Anthony Messenger,7 Vicki was inspired to start the project by a friend who had one abortion and placed another child for adoption. “I can live with the adoption,” her friend said. “I can’t live with the abortion.”

Indeed, there appear to be no links to any Christian health and/or counselling organizations (including those run by the Salvation Army. ) This includes Christian crisis pregnancy centres — centres which offer practical and emotional support to women in crisis pregnancies and women who need post-abortion healing. Defenders of abortion rights may not approve of such centres. That’s fine, no one is forcing them to go to one. But to censor their existence limits the freedom for women to choose what is best for them.

To deny women the information they need to choose a counsellor who can best serve their needs, who has a similar religious or philosophical belief system to their own, (and to specifically tell girls not to go to a Catholic hospital for counselling), is discriminatory and a violation of a person’s religious freedom.

In our case example, Jane found numerous derogatory statements about Christians on the Pro-Choice Action Network’s (ProCAN’s) website. Willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code (Section 319.) It is a fine line which separates hate propaganda from freedom of speech. Regardless, any fair-minded individual must agree that certain statements published on ProCAN’s website should not be endorsed by the Canadian government, either directly or indirectly by being associated with a CHN collaborating organization.

Yet these demeaning statements about Christians and all those who disagree with the pro-abortion-rights view does not prevent the CHN’s Affiliate, Planned Parenthood, from linking to ProCAN’s site. And it also does not prevent another of CHN’s collaborating organizations, CARAL, from supposedly working closely with ProCAN — as it states on ProCAN’s website, “We have close working ties with the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL), Canada's national pro-choice group.” CARAL also links to ProCAN’s website.

Is Health Canada aware that Christians and anyone else who holds a view which differs from that of abortion rights advocates are insulted, ridiculed, and misrepresented by an organization closely linked to two of its collaborating organizations? If Health Canada is aware, then it must agree with ProCAN’s views about Christians because CHN presents “quality, credible...information you can trust.”

Has Health Canada forgotten its own promises:
• To be socially-inclusive and respectful of diversity
• To exemplify ethics and integrity ?

Abortion Providers as Counsellors

In the article entitled “How can a woman find out what options are available to her”8 on the CHN site, there is a link to Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA.) PPFA has local PP Affiliates across the US and many of them sell abortions.

PPFA’s 2002 Annual Report, “Creating Hope for Humanity”9 indicates that its Affiliates performed 197,070 abortions in 2000, and made only 2486 adoption referrals to outside agencies. In 2001, the number of abortions increased by 8.1% to 213,026 and the number of adoption referrals decreased to 1951. That’s a ratio of 109:1.

These two facts combined (that abortions generate revenue for PPFA Affiliates, and that PP clients choose abortion far more often than adoption) make it seem like PPFA and its Affiliates could be financially biased towards counselling women towards choosing abortion over adoption. Again, to use the smoking analogy, how could a Tobacco company, who makes money from selling cigarettes, be trusted to give unbiased information about the risks/benefits associated with smoking?

Of course, anything is possible. So this is not proof that PPFA is encouraging abortion over adoption. But it does tell us we should not assume that PPFA’s pre-abortion counselling has women’s best interests in mind. And until the counselling can be proven to be unbiased, PPFA would not seem to be a credible resource on the topic of abortion.

Abortions due to NVP

To CHN’s credit, a search on “pregnancy counselling” results in two links to articles on Motherrisk’s website. Motherrisk provides valuable information about medical issues surrounding pregnancy such as Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy (NVP), commonly referred to as morning sickness; effects of alcohol/tobacco on the fetus; medical treatment for depression/HIV/cancer during pregnancy, etc., (although does not seem to explore the various options surrounding a crisis pregnancy — what one might think would be meant by “pregnancy counselling.”) This site appears to be neither pro-life nor pro-abortion-rights.

Buried in this website is an article entitled “Therapeutic abortions due to severe morning sickness Unacceptable combination” (one must conduct a search on “abortion” within this site to find this article, since the CHN does not link to it directly). This article tells of women who have aborted wanted pregnancies because of severe NVP — e.g. vomiting every 30 minutes, significant weight loss, etc. Especially if accompanied by little support from a spouse, women will sometimes “choose” abortion because they simply cannot take it anymore. The report tells of how some doctors are not even aware there is a treatment for NVP and let their patients go ahead and terminate an otherwise wanted pregnancy. As the authors of the report state, “In a 2 month period, 1100 women were interviewed by us as to their experience related to morning sickness. Of those, 17 reported to have terminated an otherwise wanted pregnancy due to severe forms of morning sickness.”10

This is tragic! It is politically incorrect in our society to ask a woman why she wants an abortion. But here is proof that we need to know, because in the case of NVP, there is a treatment — and a mother’s child can be spared. Yet this important information is buried away on a website which, although linked by CHN, may not actually be visited by a woman looking for counselling for a crisis pregnancy.

Interestingly, NVP is mentioned on PPFC’s website, but only in the context of it being the most common medical condition during pregnancy. There does not appear to be any mention of it being a reason some women “choose” abortion. One would think information this critical should be contained in the articles where crisis pregnancy options are discussed. This information could literally save a child’s life.

It is also proof that not all abortions happen in the context of an unwanted pregnancy.

True Choice is Informed Choice

When organizations which should be suspected of having a conflict of interest are instead deemed to be a credible source of information — when important research findings are withheld — when only the “pro-choice” interpretations of research and statistics are presented — when words and drawings are systematically used to subtly disguise the humanity of the fetus — when alternative viewpoints on the morality of abortion are not presented — and when all this is done in the context of an ideological belief system which says opponents of abortion are anti-child, anti-woman, Christian fanatics who care nothing about the poor and the suffering, and the defenders of “choice” are lifted up as the great defenders of human rights — then a woman “choosing” abortion is not choosing freely. Freedom to choose cannot exist outside the context of knowledge of the truth. She is enslaved by her ignorance, which may be bliss, but it is not free. The truth may be hard to take, but without it, there is no freedom, including the freedom to choose.

Thus would it seem that a woman — indeed any Canadian — who is naïve enough to believe the CHN slogan “Health information you can trust” is being manipulated into believing what those with an abortion rights agenda want her to believe. In this sense, the Canadian government, through Health Canada, cannot fairly be said to support the freedom to choose abortion, and so the Canadian government’s policy cannot fairly be described as pro-choice.

In light of the evidence, it seems fair to say that, far from offering women the freedom to choose abortion, the Canadian government seems to be encouraging women to choose abortion— women who might have chosen otherwise if they were exposed to other information.

Unless Health Canada takes action to rectify this situation, it seems that the Canadian government has covertly adopted a policy which can be most fairly described as pro-abortion.

Recommendation:

Health Canada’s Choice

According to a spokesperson for Health Canada, the CHN staff and PPFC are conducting a review of the Sexual and Reproductive Health content on the CHN website, to be completed by the end of September. Now is an ideal time for Health Canada to take action to ensure that CHN reflects a true pro-choice philosophy — that is, one that allows women to make informed choices. It could accomplish this by choosing one of the following two options:

Option 1: “Pro-Choice” and Pro-Life

Firstly, CHN website continues to link to “pro-choice” sites and adds links to pro-life sites so that users of the CHN website are presented with all sides of the abortion issue. Secondly, all factual information presented on the linked sites (e.g., statistics, research findings, etc.) must be accurate and presented in a way which does not mislead (for example, if a statistic of 1.1% complication rate is quoted, it must be made clear to the reader how this number was calculated based on incomplete data). And thirdly, all linked sites must be devoid of bigotry.

This means that in addition to the PPFC Affiliate which is in charge of choosing “pro-choice” material, there must be a corresponding Affiliate to choose the pro-life material.

Option 2: Neither “Pro-Choice” nor Pro-Life

CHN links to neutral sites only, sites which neither support nor oppose abortion rights. Such sites contain information on all health issues related to abortion, all counselling options, lists all types of counselling agencies, clearly specifying which ones support abortion and which ones don’t without judgment. Sites may contain information explaining the various views on abortion but without advocating one view over the other. (An example of a neutral site would be www.afterabortion.com). However, very few neutral sites exist. This means new sites need to be created to contain the most reliable and timely health and counselling information related to abortion, taking input from the pro-abortion-rights side and the pro-life side. Both sides will have to approve the information that goes on these sites to ensure it is respectful and unbiased. As in Option 1, a new pro-life Affiliate will need to be selected to work alongside the “pro-choice” Affiliate.

Regardless of which option is selected, Health Canada needs to stay focused on the health aspects of abortion.

It is hoped and believed that once Health Canada is aware of the situation as it now stands, it will take corrective action to ensure that the Canadian Health Network website truly is a source of “Health information you can trust” for all Canadians. — BM

You can email your feedback on the Canadian Health Network website to Health Canada at:

chn-webadmin@hc-sc.gc.ca

(Editor’s note: Due to time and space limitations, this article has presented just some of the examples of the CHN’s bias on the topic of abortion. More will be explored in future issues of LifeCanada News. In addition, we hope to be able to update our readers on CHN’s progress towards removing pro-abortion bias from its website.)

1 Ostbye T, Wenghofer EF, Woodward CA, Gold G, Craighead J. Health services utilization after induced abortions in Ontario: A comparison between community clinics and hospitals. American Journal of Medical Quality 2001 May; 6(3):99-106. See table 3, p. 103, and p. 105.

2 Women’s Health After Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence, by Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles, deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, 2002; p. 3.

3 Josefsson A, Angelsiöö L, Berg G, Ekström CM, Gunnervik C, Nordin C, Sydsjö G. Obstetric, somatic, and demographic risk factors for postpartum depressive symptoms. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2002; 99:223-228.

4 From an email received from Dr. Josefsson, August 16, 2003.

5 Josefsson A, Gunnarsson T, Sydsjö G. A follow-up study of postnatal depressed women: Recurrent maternal depressive symptoms and child behaviour after four years. From Linköping University Medical Dissertation No. 781, Postpartum Depression: Epidemiological and Biological Aspects, Ann Josefsson, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of Psychiatry, Linköping University, Sweden, 2003.

6 From his website, “Knowledge, compassion and commitment to truth and integrity,” www.jeromerosenberg.com/work/perp.htm

7 www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jan2002/

8 This is the first link in the list of 28 which is presented to the user searching on “abortion.”

9 www.plannedparenthood.org/about/PPFA_annreport_2002.pdf

10 www.motherisk.org/updates/jun97.php3