Local Waitrose supporting anti-abortion charity

[WaitroseSucks]

Waitrose gives shoppers tokens to drop into collecting points to support local charities. My local Waitrose is currently supporting a 'pregnancy counselling service'. I checked the 'charity's' website, which has all the usual guff about offering 'impartial advice', then checked their parent company and discovered that it's run by these guys.

AIBU to think Waitrose should check the credentials of 'charities' before collecting on their behalf? I imagine there would be outrage if Waitrose openly supported a charity like Abortion Rights, whose name does what it says on the tin.

Have tried to contact someone at my local store, but relevant person is 'away until Wednesday'. Meanwhile the collection points will continue to operate and unwary shoppers will be supporting a 'charity' that is concealing its true agenda.

Have name changed for this, but am MN regular.

exactly. you always have to live with it

For what it's worth I have seen plenty of materials from the journey in my counselling via care confidential and it wasn't religious, judgemental or offensive in anyway. If it ever is, then that is the spin of the individual counsellor and should be stopped. There is nothing wrong with the programme in and of itself. If the pro choice posters here could have been a fly on the wall in my sessions I really don't think they would have objected to the content. There is nothing in it about sinning or repentance as far as I am aware - it was never used with me in any case.

The journey does cover the topic of guilt and shame, but I'm not sure what's wrong with that. For me those were big issues and required a lot of work. To be honest that is likely to be the case with many women who have gone to seek abortion counselling. My counsellor never gave the impression that I done anything wrong or deserved to feel guilty/ashamed - quite the contrary. The journey doesn't suggest that women should feel that, it just acknowledges that many do and helps them deal with it. If you don't have issues on that front then you would be able to quickly move past onto whatever the next step is - they are not going to insist that you need to feel some shame!

There is nothing wrong with the programme in and of itself.

I am perfectly happy to accept that. If somebody finds the 'Journey' approach helpful I don't have a problem with that.

The problem comes when an organisation isn't open about the fact that it will give advice from a particular view point and claims to be unbiased. It is obvious that Marie Stopes is a clinic for abortion and contraception.

And again, I think Waitrose would shy away from including them in their Community Matters scheme.

But according to them they don't give advice from a particular view point. Their approach is to present the options and give people a choice.

But according to them they don't give advice from a particular view point. Their approach is to present the options and give people a choice.

Exactly.

Looking at all the available evidence: the investigations, the close ties to Care Confidential, the prayer letters, prayer breakfasts and prayer lunches I don't think that is honest.

There are literally thousands of Christian charities doing things like food banks and third world aid and so on. Things like prayer lunches don't mean they are proselytising. Most do not.

And it wasn't Care Confidential itself that was criticised, it was individual affiliates.

If you are really concerned about the £85 or whatever it is Waitrose Worthing is going to donate, why not do some mystery shopping and go there for pregnancy counselling.

There are literally thousands of Christian charities doing things like food banks and third world aid and so on.

That is absolutely fine and many of them do great work.

However, the above board ones are open about being Christian organisations.

Is there any update on this? Have they removed the charity? They have removed your comment from their Facebook page

agreed it's terrible, but can remember when unmarried women [or those expecting down's/spina bifida children after amnio result] were routinely offered abortion with the pregnancy result[when couldn't buy tests]...hard to believe I know, but pro-choice didn't really used to be about choice either : neither side is without fault in this argument

btw was referring to what o/p was initially saying there

Heartisaspade I'm glad you had a positive experience with Marie stopes. I'm not for a minute suggesting that they force anyone to have an abortion or that it's not possible to change your mind at any stage. Of course it is and everyone is free to do so. I take responsibility for my own decision and I'm certainly not putting it on Marie stopes or anyone else.

However it did feel to me very much like they proceed as if abortion is foregone conclusion from first encounter with them. I was referred to them as very much "undecided" and not as "wants an abortion'" so I think this at least should be noted and maybe a slightly different tack taken depending on which of those applies when the woman arrives with them.

I didn't get my booked counselling session as counsellor was not available and they said oh well, we can just book straight in for your termination. Which I had not even decided on! I was then offered phone counselling instead which was completely inadequate. During that counselling I was crying and clearly completely distressed about the prospect of an abortion and the counsellor was like but you've just said you're a student and can't afford it, you don't need to feel guilty... Etc. Not really helpful.

At the medical scan appointment they didn't ask anything about doubts and they put words in my mouth about my reasons which did not reflect my thoughts and feelings at all. I am still quite angry about what was written on my form which was "not emotionally and financially ready for a child". I feel like that is their standard comment for any student/young person regardless of what they actually say. A Marie stopes nurse and wrote this down when actually the very opposite was the case. Emotionally I strongly wanted a child and my reason not to go ahead was purely a head over heart logic decision in the circumstances, so it was a kick in the teeth to have such a thing on my paperwork.

When I had the scan with them at that same appointment I said I wanted to see my baby and they turned the screen so I could look without querying anything about how I felt about it. I think that probably should have been a prompt to talk to me.

Anyway sorry that is a bit of a tangent/venting. I don't particularly have beef with Marie Stopes about this (just struggles with myself) and I think they do provide a valuable service as an organisation, though could definitely be improved.

I am glad you had a good experience with them and made a decision you are happy with. Just feel sad wishing I had done the same.

Tsukuru....that's a shame....it's like 'well naturally you'll sensibly want an abortion' is sometimes the default attitude

I would be interested to know what the information notice next to the token box says OP.

Op I've rtft and you haven't presented any factual information at all that Acorn is an anti-abortion charity or/and that the shoppers electing to put their token in the Acorn box are confused about the work of that organisation.

I understand you feel very strongly about the research you have read about counsellors working for associations affialiated with Care but you seem to have little proof or facts in relation to this organisation that you're calling on Waitrose to remove from their charitable activities.

I just tried to comment on the post on fb and it won't let me!

There is plenty of information on this thread that shows that there is more to Acorn than just being an unbiased pregnancy counselling service. Again, it would be interesting to know exactly what the information above the box said.

I have no problem with an organisation like PETA believing whatever they want to believe about animal rights. However, while I might seek their opinion if I was researching animal welfare in the food industry I would not expect them to give me an unbiased opinion.

It is a problem if charities are not honest about what they do as they gain credibility and exposure from being part of the scheme. I'm a Waitrose customer. I don't want horse meat in my beef burger, and I don't want to have the wool pulled over my eyes by charities taking part in the green box scheme.

merrymouse I've been back through the thread again and I can't see any independent facts about Acorn to validate your comment. In fact the information pertaining to Acorn (including its annual report) reiterates that is offers impartial advice including mentioing that they have three new information leaflets that have been accredited by the independent Information Standard

You can find out more about the Independent Information Standard here TIS

I agree charities need to be honest about what they do but there is nothing on this thread to prove that Acorn hasn't been honest. Instead there is lots of opinion and misrepresentation which tbf is ironic since that seems to be the main criticisms being levied at Acorn!

Let me be clear I have no knowledge of Acorn other than what is on this thread but I've lots of friends who work in the charity sector and I know how difficult fundraising can be. A campaign like this can be massively damaging and for that reason I think it should be based on facts and evidence rather than opinion.

Yes, I know they say they give impartial advice.

However, strangely they seem a little quiet about the women who successfully and happily had abortions following counselling sessions. The highlight of the session in schools also seems to be a detailed examination of what happens to a baby at different stages of pregnancy. More main stream advice sessions for teens might be about choosing, using and discussing contraception.

They have also been affiliated to an organisation that has been the subject of investigation and has recently seen fit to distance it's self from it's members because apparently some of them give very bad advice.

They have very close ties to local churches and have prayer meetings.

These are all things that are relevant if you are looking for impartial, reliable advice on what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

Having prayer meetings is not a bad thing.

merrymouse you're conflating all their different services and I doubt they use a multi-disciplinary staff team so really their education work won't cross over into their counselling services.

Also, schools invite them to provide those information sessions so I think it's safe to assume that the schools involved have identified a gap in their provision and that it doesn't mean there are no other sex education lessons.

Obviously you have an issue with them having links to a faith. You're entitled to feel uncomfortable about that but you are wrong to assume that means they cannot offer an impartial service. Not only because I think you're wrong but because governments across the globe provide funding to faith-based organisations to provide impartial advice and care. It's recognised that a faith affiliation does not preclude the provision of impartial advice and care.

Most charities will have different strands of fundraising so it's also a bit of a straw man to look at their work in schools because the OP seems to imply the fundraising was for their pregnancy advice service.

No, I have no problem with faith based services providing any kind of service as long as there is choice and they are open and honest about their perspective. I don't have a problem with prayer meetings either.

I do have a problem when people are misled, particularly when they are in a vulnerable situation.

It's recognised that a faith affiliation does not preclude the provision of impartial advice and care.

Not really. It is generally agreed that a conflict of interest can be created and that any affiliation should be made clear.

I would also feel misled if a service claiming to provide impartial advice on breastfeeding didn't make clear that it was funded by a formula company, if a financial advisor didn't make clear that he was getting commission or a report on gm foods didn't make it clear that it had been paid for by the soil association.

It isn't wrong to have an agenda. It is wrong to claim to be neutral and hide your agenda from others.

i think you make some very valid points Book.