Will a pair of previously rejected bus advertisements from Guelph and Area Right to Life be installed soon? The answer to that question was decided during an appeal hearing on Friday, but won’t be publicly released for up to three weeks.
Neither the outcome of an advertising review panel decision nor the reasons behind its ruling were announced following deliberations, merely that a decision had been made.
Asked why the decision is being withheld for now, acting-city clerk Dylan McMahon explained via email the delay is “to allow time for the panel’s decision, including brief reasons for that decision, to be provided in writing.”
The appeal centres around two of several proposed bus ads submitted to the city by Guelph and Area Right to Life (GARL) last year. Officials rejected two of them, leading to Friday’s appeal hearing.
Both ads deal with the issue of abortion.
In one case, city officials challenge the use of “Legal ≠ Safe” in reference to Health Canada-approved medical abortion pills, review panel members heard. Inclusion of the graphic "impugns both the manufacturer and the approval authority."
The other denied ad includes a website address which promotes abortion pill reversal and “provides information that could be construed as medical advice, and the subject matter of which both the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have issued statements asserting that abortion pill ‘reversal’ is not supported by science.”
The review panel consists of five senior city staff, chaired by deputy CAO Trevor Lee.
After returning from 30 minutes of in-camera deliberations, the panel returned to open session and Lee announced a decision had been made.
“We really are a little bemused about the city’s reaction to us,” GARL president Jacki Jeffs told the panel. “If we live in a society that promotes choice, why wouldn’t we promote a second choice for women?”
In defending the abortion pill reversal ad, Jeffs pointed to a July 2021 national news article that purportedly included comments from Health Canada officials that the reversal process is a treatment protocol and not specific to any one drug, and is therefore allowed to be advertised.
“I would have thought that answered it,” she said of satisfying city officials on the appropriateness of the ad.
“There have been different ways that physicians and medical researchers are trying to help women,” she continued. “All that the abortion pill reversal does is use it in a different way.”
In response, city lawyer Allison Thornton said the reversal process in question “amounts to a human experiment which the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) has taken the extraordinary step of warning against.”
“Similar statements have been issued by the British and American bodies to the SOGC,” Thornton added.
In terms of the “Legal ≠ Safe” ad, Jeffs claimed studies show the Health Canada-approved abortion pill is comparatively more dangerous for women than surgical abortion.
“They’re not equal,” she said. “I don’t understand how that can be misleading, how that can be misinformation, how it can be (viewed as) as pushing a protocol that is dangerous for women.”
If the ad were to urge people to ask their doctor about the risks and benefits of the abortion processes, Thornton said the ad would likely have been approved.
Use of the “does not equal” graphic is “not fair on the facts,” she added.
