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.  The complainant argued the programme only hinted that the majority of crisis pregnancy centres actually offer a good service.  However in the ECU’s view the reporter made clear the criticism was only levelled at some centres, and put the available figures into proper context.  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   specialists in this area.  In each case the ECU believed there was a sound editorial justification for including their comments.  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.  The ECU understood most abortion providers ask to perform an ultrasound scan to work out how many weeks pregnant a woman is.  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)  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’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Not Upheld