Panorama: Crisis Pregnancy Centres Uncovered, 大象传媒 One, 27 February 2023

Complaint

A viewer complained the programme was inaccurate, biased and misleading, and highlighted only a section of the support given to women and girls facing an unexpected pregnancy. 听It was suggested the experts who contributed to the programme all had 鈥渁 vested interest in providing abortions鈥 and that, as a result, the report did not reflect an appropriate range of views. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the 大象传媒鈥檚 standards of accuracy and impartiality.


Outcome

Panorama set out to investigate allegations that some of the dozens of independent pregnancy advice centres in the UK were providing pregnant women with inappropriate advice and inaccurate information, and using unduly coercive tactics to discourage women from considering the option of an abortion. 听The complainant argued the programme only hinted that the majority of crisis pregnancy centres actually offer a good service. 听However in the ECU鈥檚 view the reporter made clear the criticism was only levelled at some centres, and put the available figures into proper context. 听Panorama also reflected the position of the four centres which did feature in the programme.

Women in the UK are entitled to have an abortion (following a medical assessment and within certain time limits) and the programme sought the advice of three 听听specialists in this area. 听In each case the ECU believed there was a sound editorial justification for including their comments. 听Those watching were told about their experience, affiliations and viewpoint, and audiences would have judged what they said accordingly.

The complainant also raised concern about the accuracy of some aspects of the programme, in particular the critical reference to the use of ultrasounds. 听The ECU understood most abortion providers ask to perform an ultrasound scan to work out how many weeks pregnant a woman is. 听However, since crisis pregnancy advice centres do not offer abortions there was a clear editorial justification for the programme to consider the reasons why two of the centres it visited encouraged women to have a scan.

Similarly when the term Post Abortion Syndrome or Post Abortive Syndrome (PAS) 听was discussed, the programme reflected different views and perspectives against a background of the fact that PAS does not appear to be recognised by organisations such as the World Health Organisation or the UK鈥檚 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Not Upheld