Crisis Pregnancy Centers Lie in England Too


It has long been documented that so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the United State are really anti-abortion propaganda mills that lie to women to keep them from having an abortion. Turns out CPCs in the UK do the same thing and even seem to have invented a new lie:

At the London CPC, named the Central London Women’s Centre (CLWC), an undercover reporter was told by an adviser, who gave her name as Annabel, that an abortion carried various “risks”.

“There’s also, an increased statistical likelihood of child abuse”, Annabel said.

“When you have a child you have natural maternal instincts towards the child and there are also natural barriers that surround the child that you don’t cross.

“In order to have an abortion you have to break through both those sets of barriers, basically, and some people can find it hard to put them back in place.”

She said it was a “very low percentage” of people, but that sexual abuse was possible because an abortion “can really confuse relationships with children”.

The same adviser at the CLWC also warned that a woman could be at more risk of sterility. During an appointment last month, the counsellor also told the reporter that infection was “quite common”.

Isn’t it interesting how casually those who claim to be the voices of morality will lie?

Comments

  1. hexidecima says

    Ah, good to see that Christians everywhere intentionally lie and thus show that they do not believe in their religion any more than I do.

  2. stever says

    Any fundywhackazoid will tell you that lying for Jesus is no sin. What none of them will admit is that they consider it especially virtuous if it increases the amount of misery in the world.

  3. raven says

    She said it was a “very low percentage” of people, but that sexual abuse was possible because an abortion xianity “can really confuse relationships with children”.

    Fixed.

    Some xian groups have a serious problem with child sexual abuse.

    1. We all know about the Catholic priests. The same thing is true in Mormonism and Jehovahs Witnesses among others. It seems to be an inevitable outgrowth of patriarchial, authoritarian sects.

    2. Fundie xians have high rates of sexual child abuse. The second highest predictor for child sexual abuse is membership in fundie cults. (The first is drug or alcohol use by the father.)

  4. Reginald Selkirk says

    It’s a good thing that women who decide not to have abortions never commit child abuse.

  5. Pierce R. Butler says

    Hardly a new lie at all. I saw lots of “abortion is the ultimate child abuse” spiels – along with claims that rising reports of abuse matched abortion rates – back in the ’90s, and have no reason to believe they were fresh then.

  6. Pen says

    I’m afraid this may be an increasing problem in London, with all kinds of rather dubious looking pregnancy crisis centers advertising themselves all over the place. I fear for any girl or woman who is vulnerable and chooses her source of help from a prominently placed public advert. The evangelicals have been moving into Britain for some time now. I’m pretty sure it’s not a grassroots thing. I think it’s a deliberate campaign of encroachment with big money behind it and a reliance on more ‘subtle’ forms of missionary activity. I don’t necessarily want to point the finger at American influences and financial backers, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

  7. A Masked Avenger says

    Modus beat me to it, but they’re not lying: they’re making shit up and then believing it. When my kid was 5 (hell, when I was 5), it was normal to make shit up and believe it. Little people in the TV? Makes sense to me! Must be true. Firemen live at the firehouse with their fire families? Yep: makes sense to me, so it’s true.

  8. raven says

    I don’t necessarily want to point the finger at American influences and financial backers, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

    Huh? Why not?

    Don’t be afraid of the facts. It’s not like most of us Americans like them either. And don’t be afraid to oppose them. The fundie’s goal is a New Endarkenment. You wouldn’t want to live in it.

    It is Americans and American money behind them, at least in part. That is no secret.

    The driver here is their lack of success in the USA. They’ve tried and failed to take over the USA while their religion is slowing dying here, killed off by the sheer malevolence of their perverted version.

    So the fundies are exporting their Dark Side xianity anywhere they can. Uganda, Nigeria, the UK, Russia, China, etc..

  9. AsqJames says

    “There’s also, an increased statistical likelihood of child abuse”, Annabel said.
    “When you have a child you have natural maternal instincts towards the child and there are also natural barriers that surround the child that you don’t cross.
    “In order to have an abortion you have to break through both those sets of barriers, basically, and some people can find it hard to put them back in place.”
    She said it was a “very low percentage” of people, but that sexual abuse was possible because an abortion “can really confuse relationships with children”.

    It’s not as if academics don’t study these things. Most of the literature is (as ever) behind paywalls, but there’s enough freely available on the intertubes that with 2 minutes googling and 15 minutes of skim reading you can figure out:

    1) Unintended pregnancies which are carried to term are associated with higher levels of child abuse/mistreatment.
    2) The legalization of abortion did not lead to higher rates of child neglect/mistreatment.
    3) One of the largest indicators of child mistreatment (abuse, neglect, etc) is economic hardship.
    4) Unintended pregnancy carried to term is associated with lower educational attainment and economic success, and this association is also correlated with age at first childbirth.

    There is debate as to which causal direction is more significant (does poverty & low education lead to early unintended pregnancies more than early unintended pregnancies lead to poverty and low educational achievement), but it seems highly likely there is a causal link in both directions to some degree. In other words Annabel’s actions are likely to lead to higher levels of child mistreatment than would otherwise be the case.

    Now admittedly, your googling will also turn up plenty of Xian propaganda along the lines of Annabel’s hypothesis, but it’s fairly easy to tell the difference. The academic literature tends to have data, explains methods, tries to quantify the level of confidence in their conclusions and is open about where the evidence is weak.

  10. raven says

    1) Unintended pregnancies which are carried to term are associated with higher levels of child abuse/mistreatment.
    2) The legalization of abortion did not lead to higher rates of child neglect/mistreatment.
    3) One of the largest indicators of child mistreatment (abuse, neglect, etc) is economic hardship.
    4) Unintended pregnancy carried to term is associated with lower educational attainment and economic success, and this association is also correlated with age at first childbirth.

    Add in:

    Unintended pregnancy carried to term is associated with higher levels of mental illness. From the Danish study of 2011.

    Pregnancy and childbirth are stressful enough without throwing in, unplanned pregnancies with associated problems such as poor economics.

  11. noe1951 says

    As a nurse, I would say that if someone at a CPC tells you that infertility is a problem, and infections are ‘quite common’, take yourself out of there immediately, and find a more reputable place. Nice of that woman to let people know that her facility doesn’t care about common, sterile procedures.

  12. says

    noe1951 “Nice of that woman to let people know that her facility doesn’t care about common, sterile procedures.”
    Why would they care about them? They don’t do medical procedures. At worst, someone could get a papercut on a “Jesus Loves You, You Dirty Whore” pamphlet.

  13. D. C. Sessions says

    The John Roberts-led U.S. Supreme Court is going to take up the issue of a Right To Lie.
    Doesn’t that reassure you?

    It’s directly connected to the State-mandated obligation of obstetricians to lie to their patients. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been challenged, despite the fact that there’s a lot of First Amendment jurisprudence equating compelled speech with prior restraint and Griswold hinging on the combination of free speech and privileged communication in a doctor-patient relationship.

    I can pretty easily see the five Catholics of the Roberts Majority taking the earliest responsibility to overrule Griswold and make it possible again for States to forbid physicians from informing their patients as well as compelling them to lie to them.

  14. raven says

    It’s directly connected to the State-mandated obligation of obstetricians to lie to their patients.

    This is practicing medicine without a license. Or a brain. Not smart.

    What about the free speech rights of the docs? Or the patients? Seems like the First Amendment would protect the right of OB-GYN’s to tell the truth and practice best available medicine.

  15. tsig says

    Lying for Jesus goes back to the first preacher, Paul:

    “19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

  16. D. C. Sessions says

    raven, legislatures are the ones who dictate the “medicine without a license” laws and very few claim that they’re smart. Bottom line is that they do, in fact, dictate the speech of practitioners.

    As for the First Amendment, well, those were prior Supreme Courts. You may judge the odds of the Roberts Court following those precedents by some of their other landmark decisions.

  17. cheesynougats says

    Going OT, but from the link @4:

    “The truth or falsity of political speech should be judged by voters, not government bureaucrats,”

    Nice to see facts don’t even have to get involved.

  18. Pen says

    @ Raven 10 – Don’t be afraid of the facts.

    Well… I happen not to know the facts. Knowing facts would mean being able to name the connections between organisations, the channels through which money is coming, to be aware of any documents outlining an actual plan (I suspect there is one, but merely suspect). If you know all that stuff, you know more than me. Someone should do a post.

  19. al jones says

    Apologies if this is covered by a previous post. Abortion advice is free on the NHS. Any woman can visit her GP to be referred to an NHS abortion service. The Central London Women’s Centre is a private organisation. It advertises in a misleading way to make contact with women seeking an abortion. I think it’s highly likely it is a front for religious based, pro lifers. A recent comment from the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority. “The Central London Women’s Centre is in breach of the UK Advertising Standards Code for failing to make clear that a service offering advice on unplanned pregnancy did not refer women directly for a termination and also for giving the misleading impression that the Central London Women’s Centre was an abortion clinic. Despite repeated requests to amend the ad in line with the ruling, Central London Women’s Centre has failed to do so.”

Leave a Reply