Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Canada and Reproductive Justice Organizations’ Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spread of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) has become an alarming issue in the fields of public health and reproductive justice (RJ) as they impede women’s fully-informed decisions and threaten women’s reproductive autonomy. However, most existing scholarship has only focused on CPCs within the United States; hardly any literature has been devoted to anti-CPC activism. This study contributes to addressing these gaps by adopting a mixed method. The paper first reviews the status quo of U.S. and Canadian CPCs through the existing literature to contextualize my investigation. Then it explores the establishment of individual Canadian CPCs to evaluate whether they are gaining more influence. It also analyzes the presence and absence of information on Canadian anti-CPC activism in the social media of RJ organizations. Finally, it examines the interviews I conducted with Canadian RJ activists to identify the ongoing anti-CPC activism and why some groups do not regard it central to their agenda. Results of this research reveal that CPCs have been continuously expanding in Canada during the past 35 years. Despite realizing their threat, most Canadian RJ groups do not focus their activism on CPCs and instead, concern themselves more with such issues as abortion access owing to their political engagement restriction, as well as their viewpoint that variation among Canadian CPCs and the Canadian liberal political context lessen CPCs’ overall threat. The limited ongoing activism includes lobbying for halting funding for CPCs, revoking their charitable statuses, banning their advertisements, and removing their biased sex education from public schools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".