Talk:Crisis pregnancy center/Archive 1

Need help expanding criticisms section

I would like to expand the criticisms section, but I am having a hard time writing this section. I was wondering if any editors would like to contribute. I have found a number of sources with information. [1] [2] [3] I was thinking of having an additional paragraph on various alleged tactics used by some CPC (such as holding the pregnancy test results hostage, making clients sit through graphic and disturbing films, anti-choice counceling, misinformation, and religious arguments, etc). Expanding the 2nd paragraph to cover more legal issues, and perhaps expanding the first paragraph as well. Any suggestion, or anyone want to take this on?--Andrew c 01:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Let's invite one of the known pro-life partisans to "write for the enemy". Alienus 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is total crap. The article is completely biased and POV. Andrew c continually deletes reasonable and sensible edits that delete POV arguments.

CPCs do NOT hand out religious information or Bibles (though they may have them on hand if a woman asks for one). CPCs are NOT pro-life organizations in the strictest sense. They DO NOT discourage women from having abortions, but rather discuss the range of options available to a woman, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO abortion.

Andrew c is not an appropriate moderator of this topic if he is unwilling to remove his POV arguments and try and pass them off as factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.54.2 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand you are upset, but please try to be calm and civil in your talk page discussions. Keep in mind that edit warring and attempting to force your edits will not work. The best thing to do in a content dispute is to go to talk and calmly present your proposed changes for everyone to consider. One thing that helps is to back up your claims with sources. In fact, we are not allowed to put personal opinion in the articles. We cannot publish things for the first time here on wikipedia. Everything should be verifiable, and we do this by citing sources. It sounds like you are describing your personal knowledge of crisis pregnancy centers. How do you know that the majority of Crisis Pregnancy Centers are not pro-life? How do you know that they do not distribute religious literature? How can these claims be verified? Also, I found the mission statement of multiple CPCs that explicitly state that they discourage women from having abortions. Here is a question, are you from the US? Perhaps the term has different meanings in different countries, and perhaps you are talking about something outside of the typical US use of the term.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I don't think this sentence belongs in the opening paragraph, since there is a whole section already devoted to criticisms: "Critics claim the primary purpose of CPCs is to encourage pregnant women not to have abortions." I would think that the info already in the paragraph make it clear that the staff of CPCs are against abortion. Thoughts? MamaGeek Joy 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by the whole "provide services in support of abortion alternatives" part. What are abortion alternatives? I can think of one: carry the pregnancy to term. I guess you then have the choice of giving it up for adoption or keeping it yourself. But really, abortion alternatives? Plural? That said, what if we combined the two sentences. "Crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) are non-profit organizations, generally established by pro-life supporters, that work to encourage pregnant women not to have abortions by providing a number (maternaty? pregnancy related? supportive?) services." I agree that my reinsertion of the deleted material was a little sloppy. It isn't really a criticism, but a fact that the goal of CPC is to discourage abortion. And I do not think it is controversial that this is one of their primary goals, though that wording may not be needed. However, I do not feel the current wording sans the old wording exactly conveys the anti-abortion position of CPC. What do you think of my proposed combined opening?

--Andrew c 22:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that "abortion alternatives" sounds like a euphemism. That means we can mention it, with proper attribution, but cannot ourselves endorse it. Perhaps we should go with your suggested revision, ending with "supportive services". After all, these services support the woman in her pregnancy. Alienus 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I like "supportive services" better than "maternity" or "pregnancy-related," because CPCs provide services not only during pregnancy but afterwards as well. My only problem with the sentence alone is that CPCs will help any woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, even if she would never consider an abortion. They also provide help to women who already have children, who are having difficulty caring for them. The opening sentence is probably ok, since the primary goal is to prevent abortions, but that's not all they do. How about the following:

"Crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) are non-profit organizations, generally established by pro-life supporters, that work to encourage pregnant women not to have abortions and to help mothers in need by providing a number of supportive services."

Does that sound too POV to you? I'm not sure how else to capture the non-abortion-related aspect of the centers.MamaGeek Joy 11:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is sources and undue weight. I'm skeptical that these centers are typically as helpful as you suggest. Is it normal for all centers to shower every pregnant woman who comes in with clothes and housing and other resources, or do they almost always deal with counseling and literature? I mean, a lot of these centers work is over the phone. I do not know how their other services and resources are used for phone clients. You make it sound like these centers are primarily charities or social service centers. But like I said, the issue here is sources. My skepticism could be completely wrong. I wouldn't know how we'd go about verifying exactly what the majority of CPCs do. We could always add "CPC claim that they do such and such", but then that sounds overly suspicious. All that said, and reading through your proposal again, I would approve that wording, but do we really need to say “generally”? I think the reason why CPCs are different from ‘regular’ pregnancy help services is because they are specifically pro-life.--Andrew c 16:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Showering with clothing - yes. In my experience (granted this is only in a few centers in my area of the country), they have an overabundance of donated clothes. Housing? Not really. Most centers could not afford to provide housing, but will provide referrals to other agencies, civic and otherwise, that can. I would not say they are "primarily" social service centers, but they are charitable organisations. They are most concerned with crisis pregnancies, hence the name, but will try to help in other ways if they can. Think about it. If a mother of small children receives help when she needs it for the children she has, would she not be less likely to abort a later pregnancy out of concerns for her ability to care for the new child? MamaGeek Joy 17:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The following problems with the article require resolution:

• I would argue that CPCs are not established solely "as a means of encouraging pregnant women not to have abortions," but rather in response to criticisms of abortion rights supporters that those opposed to abortion did not provide support for any alternative choice.

You would argue it, but you are not in a position to do so. Rather, your job is to find reliable sources to cite in support of this conclusion. Alienus 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone cite a source for this sentence " Historically, CPCs were created in response to criticisms by abortion rights supporters that those opposed to abortion wanted to deny one choice (abortion), but did not provide support for any other."--Andrew c 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This was something I had learned somewhere, can't remember. I won't complain if you remove it. MamaGeek Joy 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Religion - not all CPCs are religiously-affiliated (see Birthright), evangelize, or provide religious materials or advice. (unsigned by MamaGeek)

Likewise, if you would like to cite reliable sources about the existence of non-religious CPC's, feel free to do so. In the meantime, the majority of your changes were unacceptably full of POV, so I was forced to revert them. Please discuss these issues in more detail here and seek consensus before making further changes of this sort. Alienus 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Birthright International was the very first Crisis Pregnancy Center organisation. It is not religiously-affiliated. I did cite them in external links. Go look at their website. I put back my changes. MamaGeek Joy 12:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Birthright

I believe the secular nature of Birthright is being over emphasized. Article 111, Section 2 of the Birthright Charter Document says:

"The Policy of every Birthright Chapter and everyone of its members and volunteers is all that chapter's efforts shall be to refrain in every instance from offering or giving advice on the subjects of contraception or sterilization, and to refrain from referring any person to another person, place or agency for this type of service."

I don't see why an organisation has to be religiously-affiliated to avoid giving advice on contraception or sterilization. It may be something that a religious body is concerned with, but so is rape. Would you accuse a center of being religious because they oppose rape?MamaGeek Joy 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it just coincidental that many Birthright offices are located in Catholic buildings (just google "birthright catholic")? What about the Birthright group that gave a Christmas tree full of plastic fetuses to a gym in Kansas?

Even if some of the chapters are run by Catholics, the organisation as a whole is not religiously-affiliated. There's a chapter in my own town, and it doesn't have anything to do with religion, nor does it attempt to evangelize. As for a Christmas tree...aren't Christians always complaining about secular symbolism trumping the true meaning of Christmas? You can't have it both ways.MamaGeek Joy 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no purpose behind creating a seperate section saying "Religiously-affiliated centers may additionally provide:" because it is already clear that "depending on its size and resources, a center may provide the following services". As a compromise, what if we add "affiliation" to the list of dependencies?

I agree. I've made the changes you suggested. MamaGeek Joy

Secular Centers in General

I've spent a modest amount of time doing a Google search for Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and found other examples of non-religiously affiliated ones, even though most admittedly are. Here are a few:

• B.E.T.A. of Titusville, FL
• Westside Pregnancy Resource Center of Los Angeles, CA
• Crisis Pregnancy Center of Bloomington, Inc. of Bloomington, IN

MamaGeek Joy 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

I noticed you found an image online and uploaded it and then claimed the license was GFDL. However, most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not appropriate for uploading to Wikipedia. I can not think of any fair use rational for this image, so we are going to have to assume that it is not appropriate for upload. We would need to get permission from the copyright holder. You may want to review Image use policy. If this issue isn't cleared up, expect your image to be tagged for possible copyright violation. Thanks.--Andrew c 18:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I will remove it from the article until I contact the site. MamaGeek Joy 11:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you. Here are some resources that wikipedia provides to help editors contact copyright holders to ask for permission. WP:BRP--Andrew c 16:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Maternity Houses

Some CPCs are affiliated with Maternity Houses, homes where women in crisis pregnancies may reside during pregnancy and after the birth of their child. Should there be some mention of this in services? See *Crisis Pregnancy Center and Hannah House Maternity Home of Bloomington, IN MamaGeek Joy 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since no one has raised any objection, I added a line in the services section about maternity houses. MamaGeek Joy 17:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, you removed a fact tag. The normal procedure is to add a citation, not simply remove it. I searched the website you referenced and saw nothing about them offering to pay rent. Also, maternity houses are different than CPCs, and that is why the page you linked to has two different names for two different services.Maybe we need an article on Maternity houses. I want to reinstate the fact tag, but I will wait to see if you come up with a citation. I am also going to convert the two existing citations to a proper cite web, ref format.--Andrew c 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that CPCs sometimes do provide housing assistance, whether through referals to a partner project or otherwise. This should be in the list somewhere. The current wording may need revision. I don't think Maternity houses are significant enough to warrant a separate article.MamaGeek Joy 11:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the fact tag, does it need a citation if there's an example of housing aid just a paragraph away? MamaGeek Joy 12:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue here is that this statement "paying the rent" is not supported by the cite you link to. I would be in favor of simply removing that clause, and my desire for a citaiton would also be removed. Perhaps we should mention maternity houses instead? Here is how it currently reads:Some centers also provide assistance with finding accommodation and paying the rent. The list is already qualified that not all CPCs offer these things, so the additional "some" seems excessive. how about "housing assistance, such as referrals to maternity homes" or something along those lines?--Andrew c 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Two items

I would move to bring the items marked with fact tags to the talk page, off of the main page. Andrew c 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

CPC and Planned Parenthood

I also came across this article about a Crisis Pregnancy Center acting like a Planned Parenthood, setting up a fake appointment for the patient, and arranging to have the cops arrive at the set 'appointment' time [4]. Should we mention this news item? If so, how should we incorprate it?--Andrew c 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is no article. The story was in a Planned Parenthood action alert mass e-mail sent out to drum up support for a bill targeting allegedly deceptive advertising by crisis pregnancy clinics. Without a reputable new agency to cite, I don't think this story belongs in a Wikipedia article. Even if the story is accurate, it is disengenuous to suggest that such criminal behavior is typical of even a minority of CPCs. It also seems suspicious that PP would supply so many details in their story if privacy was such a concern. Furthermore, unless the police, classmates, or anyone else involved or in the know have signed confidentiality agreements, then there is no keeping this from the press. It's a big enough deal that if it is true, it should appear in a real paper sometime soon.MamaGeek Joy 17:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

CPC and information on abortion procedures

MamaGeek did a partial revert on my revert, claiming POV issues. However, the POV issue raised was not in the article space, but my edit description. The fact of the matter is that CPCs do NOT give information on abortion procedures in the same manner than say a Planned Parenthood couselor gives information on abortion procedures. The way it is phrased now does not convey this aspect. Perhaps we should qualify the whole "Information on" section with saying CPC's information has a pro-life spin on things, and that they NEVER recommend or give referrals for abortion, on principle alone. I thought that the previous version was fine, hence my revert, because anon's edits completely removed the "alleged" wording, and added the "procedures" bit, unqualified. I hope we can come to a solution that isn't POV by itself, but reveals the POV of CPCs in regards to their "information" on abortion. --Andrew c 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• How about under services listing, "abortion-discouraging information about the procedure and its alleged risks" MamaGeek Joy 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work, only we should make "procedure" plural. Abortion-discouraging sounds a little awkward. "Discouraging" by itself also doesn't work. I'd prefer "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" and maybe also add "slanted" or "favorable" (biased seems too harsh). So it would read something along the lines of "anti-abortion slanted information..." or "information favorable to the pro-life view" or something. But, then again, if you don't like these suggestions I could live with yours.

--Andrew c 19:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact tag removal

There were a number of things that had been tagged for a long time. Here they are:

• Historically, CPCs were created in response to criticisms by abortion rights supporters that those opposed to abortion wanted to deny one choice (abortion), but did not provide support for any other.
• Church-affiliated centers are usually located off-site from the church in order to provide a non-intimidating setting.
• do not hand out free condoms.
• Most staffing is provided by volunteers, the vast majority of whom are female

Please feel free to restore any information with a proper citation.--Andrew c 20:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok here is one more:

• however, many centers refuse such funding, as they do not want the government to dictate what religious counseling they can or cannot provide to women in need.

Now this article has no unsourced statements. Or at least currently has no tags that state as much.--Andrew c 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is some more:

• Information on sexually transmitted diseases. (changed to STD testing, which option line claims to do, but they also claim they do abortion referels)
• classes (none of the sources said they had classes, just referrals and info)
• Baby-related items such as food and diapers, and furniture (the sources only mentioned clothing)
• Housing assistance and referrals to maternity homes (changed to housing referrals. none of the sources mentioned maternities homes nor assistance)

Andrew c 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing and word choice in intro

I reverted MamaGeek's edit (going from this to this). The changes were to the first few sentences.

1) Re: "supportive services" -- My feeling is that it's POV and OR to state the method by which they discourage women from choosing abortion. They don't only discourage women only by providing "supportive services". They also discourage women by emphasizing the physical and psychological risks of the procedure, and by showing them ultrasound images, and some emphasize theological beliefs about the implications of abortion. So rather than emphasize only the "supportive services" that some CPCs provide, we should state simply that CPCs discourage women from abortion, then state separately that some sites also provide support services.

2) Re: the word "choosing" -- What's wrong with the current sentence?

"Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to discourage pregnant women from choosing abortion."

I don't think that stating that they "choose" it is loaded. It's not like the CPC discourages them by locking them up somewhere, the CPCs discourage women from choosing abortion by talking with them. The people at CPCs want women to make a different decision, a different choice, about their pregnancy. Can you (MamaGeek) explain the issue? Joie de Vivre 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "choice" has very strong connotations in the American debate over abortion. Those favoring legalized abortion call themselves "pro-choice," and the term is used negatively against their opponents to imply that they are "against choice," much like those who are against legalized abortion call themselves "pro-life," and imply that their opponents are "against life." While the word in itself is used properly here, it is an extremely loaded term in this context, and should be avoided to present an NPOV position. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I think that phrase ("... from having abortions") looks fine. Joie de Vivre 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't chime in earlier. Just wanted to say that I thought "procuring" was an ackward word to use, and that "choosing" is a bit loaded, and has specific connotation within the abortion debate. I choose "having" because it seemed more neutral and less wordy than the two alternatives. We can all agree that CPC don't want women to have abortions, and now I'm glad that we have reached a wording on how to present that information in the article that we all can live with.-Andrew c 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All CPCs provide supportive services. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but it'd be almost impossible to back it up. Could we say "many" or "most" instead? Joie de Vivre 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that the word "choosing" is loaded in this context. The use of the word in this article did not comment on the morality of abortion or whether it should be legally available — the simple fact is that women do choose to have abortions. Thus, avoiding the word does worse by NPOV than accepting it, as it gives the impression that all abortions are coerced or unwanted. Also consider the following hypothetical construction:

"Planned Parenthood is an organization which provides birth control, abortion, breast, cervical, and testicular exams, and other services related to the reproductive life of men and women."

Would the use of the word "life" in this instance be loaded? I wouldn't say so. -Severa (!!!) 00:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. We've agreed that "having" is acceptable to everyone. What's wrong with that? MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I just realized something. The reason I think the word "choosing" is more appropriate is that it's more accurate. Saying that CPCs discourage women from "having" abortions sounds more as though they would interfere with a woman who has already made up her mind. Whereas "discourage... from choosing" sounds more as though it's still in the decision-making stage. I think "from having abortions" sounds pretty informal too. I agree with Severa that the word "choosing" is not loaded and in light of the above, I think that's what the paragraph should state. Joie de Vivre 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Research banner

The original research banner at the top has a link to this Talk page, but I see no discussion of it here. Does anyone know why it's there, or have any good reason not to take it down? MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the OR banner. I can find no un-sourced claims or any discussion on this page regarding the OR banner. No other editor has responded with the reason for the banner since User:MamaGeek's request for removal 7 months ago. This is, overall, a balanced article on a controversial topic and the banner gives the impression that it is not worth reading. (Diego Gravez 01:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

External Links

I have a big problem with the external links section. Links to the three biggest international CPC orgs were removed, and the only links in the section are negative. That's a huge unbalancing change. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 10:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What's more, no fewer than three of the external links are essentially the same thing: Waxman's anti-CPC minority report. We've got a link to Waxman's report, itself. We've got a link to the Guttmacher / Planned Parenthood "press report" about Waxman's report. And we've got a Washington Post article summarizing it (with a misleading headline). Considering that Waxman gets campaign contributions from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and that he is one of the strongest supporters of the abortion industry in Congress, the original source is far from impartial. Multiplying it by three is just ridiculous. NCdave 16:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that three of the links are the same thing. I removed the Michigan Planned Parenthood link because it didn't have much information. The link to the Congressional report itself is appropriate, as is the coverage in the press on the same. Photouploaded 14:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Female adolescents?

What is the problem with "women and girls"? The term "female adolescents" seems a bit stilted and contrived. Since the issue is pregnancy, the "female" part is obvious (and redundant). And since pre-adolescent (and, by extension premenarchial) girls are almost never pregnant, the "adolescent" part is also unnecessary. Adolescent females are girls. Girls are, by definition, female. Pregnant girls are inherently adolescents (or else they would be pregnant women). So, while not all girls are adolescent females, all adolescent females are girls. And all girls capable of naturally conceiving and carrying a fetus to term are adolescent females. Not to mention, the sentence flowed better with "girls" because the parentheses weren't needed.

So what is the issue with saying "pregnant women and girls"? I think it covers all the bases (i.e., all human beings who could possibly be pregnant) while avoiding excessive wordiness, since "adolescent female" = "girl" for the purposes of an article focusing on pregnancy. I noticed that nobody felt the need to change "women" to "premenopausal females over the age of majority". That would be a bit silly, no? Calling a pregnant girl a "pregnant adolescent female" is a bit silly, too. I look forward to any well-reasoned arguments in favor of continued exclusion of the term "girls" from the lead sentence. Thanks. (Diego Gravez 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Photouploaded, I just read your edit summary: "("girls" are children and, generally speaking, cannot become pregnant. "adolescents" is more accurate, it indicates that puberty has begun."

Actually, "pregnant" indicates that puberty has begun (see above). Adolescent is redundant. Also, I don't understand the "girls are children" reference (aren't we all someone's "children", regardless of age). My point is: the term "children" itself is incredibly vague and I have to disagree with your definition of "girl". Girls are females who are not yet adults. How do I know this? Because that is how people actually use the term "girl". I can find millions of references to "teenage GIRL(S)" (almost 5 million Google hits for girl/girls combined) and "adolescent girl(s)" (about 1,800,000) , yet relatively few for "adolescent female(s)" (about 600,000) or "teenage women/woman" (fewer than 150,000). So it would seem that the overwhelming consensus on the definition of "girl" (meaning any non-adult female) in actual usage trumps your peculiar, restricitve definition. On this basis, I will revert your edit unless you can come up with a better argument for excluding the word "girl". -Diego Gravez 08:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the threat of reinstating your recent addition of the word 'girl'. It's better to seek consensus for brand-new additions, if they are met with contention. Also, if you're going to quote someone, it's much better to include a diff so that others can easily verify that you quoted correctly.

Regarding the phrasing, yes, the phrase "teenage girls" is in use, but to remove the word "teenage" leaves the word ambiguous and unclear. You have not demonstrated that "girls" has the same meaning as "teenage girls". Since "teenage" is the modifier that clarifies the age group, and, regrettably, some adolescents become pregnant prior to the teenage years, "teenage" isn't a completely accurate modifier to use.

So, since we can't use "teenage" on its own, we need to indicate that the people we're talking about have entered puberty. The pregnancy itself, does that, but we shouldn't conclude that the existence of a pregnancy makes it appropriate to use a word that refers to children. Yes, it is probably a good idea to indicate that people in a younger age group than full adulthood can and sometimes do get pregnant, but using the word "girls", alone, is not appropriate at all.

"Girl" can apply to a tiny child who is one year old. It is more appropriate to indicate that sexual activity does not typically occur in "girls". "Pregnant women and girls" is not a phrase that belongs in this article. It's just as inappropriate to lump adolescents under "women" as it is to lump them under "girls".

My suggestions:

• "Pregnant women and female adolescents" is neutral.
• We could remove the word "female", and just say "pregnant women and adolescents".
• We could also say, "Pregnant women, teenagers and younger adolescents".

Thoughts? Photouploaded 14:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the controversial phrase while this discussion is underway. The article had been stable for a real long time with just the word "women", so it will be ok while we discuss the changes here on talk. Now, if you want my opinion, I do not believe it is necessary to alter the wording. As noted in our wikipedia entry on woman "the term woman is also sometimes used to identify a female human, regardless of age". Here is an example of one CPC's core belief [5]. You can note that they use the word "woman" freely, but don't try to address different age groups. I think similarly, we can just use the word "woman" in the same manner. It also seems a bit demeaning and disrespectful to call individuals who you want to be responsible and have a baby "girls". And I agree "female adolescence" is a very odd phrase in this context. "Women" by itself just seems appropriate here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't appreciate the threat of reinstating your recent addition of the word 'girl'.

Sorry. It wasn’t meant to be a threat. Just a statement of intention. I could not have imagined that this would actually be a contentious issue.

• Also, if you're going to quote someone, it's much better to include a diff so that others can easily verify that you quoted correctly.

I hope that “others” would assume good faith in my cut-and-paste quotes, unless “others” have a specific reason not to. I don’t think it is necessary or appropriate to include a diff for every straightforward, largely insignificant (and not likely to be contested) quote on a Talk page.

• You have not demonstrated that "girls" has the same meaning as "teenage girls".

I never intended to demonstrate that. I mentioned the term “teenage girls” to indicate that “girls” is a frequently used term for any female who has not reached adulthood (i.e., under 18 in the U.S.A.), not to imply that all girls who can become pregnant are teenagers. I also mentioned the term “adolescent girls” to support the same point.

• …we shouldn't conclude that the existence of a pregnancy makes it appropriate to use a word that refers to children.

My point is that “girl” refers to any female non-adult, not only young children. I am supported by popular usage on this (see Google searches above, or feel free to check for yourself [Google, LexisNexis, etc.]), and the Wikipedia article, girl, which states: “There are 2.17 billion people (est. UNICEF, 2004) aged 18 or under in the world, for a total of more than one billion living girls.” Do you really think any reasonable person could read the term “pregnant women and girls” and conclude that CPCs assist pregnant 5-year-olds? According to this argument, we shouldn’t use the word “women” either, because a large proportion of women are too old to become pregnant. Fortunately, using "women" is not a problem because a reasonable person reading “pregnant women” will instinctively exclude postmenopausal female humans, and will not become confused. If the term “pregnant women” is neutral (even though a “woman” can be elderly and incapable of conceiving), then “pregnant girl” is also neutral (even though girl can refer to a child far too young to conceive).

• It's just as inappropriate to lump adolescents under "women" as it is to lump them under "girls".

I disagree. It is far more inappropriate to lump adolescents under “women” than it is to lump them under “girls”. In fact, it is quite appropriate to lump them under “girls”; a point that is clearly supported by actual English usage, which should hold some weight in this debate. If very few people would ever say or write “adolescent women”, that is strong evidence that female adolescents are generally not considered women. Conversely, if “adolescent girls” is a relatively common phrase, that is strong evidence that “girl” can (and does in actual use) refer to a female adolescent.

• "the term woman is also sometimes used to identify a female human, regardless of age".

This is correct: woman “sometimes” refers to a female human of any age. However, girl “often” refers to any female human who is not legally an adult.

• It also seems a bit demeaning and disrespectful to call individuals who you want to be responsible and have a baby "girls".

I don’t follow your reasoning here. I don’t see how using the term “girl” to refer to a female minor (a use which is common and neutral) is demeaning or disrespectful. I don’t think a “15-year-old pregnant girl” is any more or less responsible than a “15-year-old pregnant woman”. The only difference is that it is uncommon to refer a 15-year-old as a “woman”, regardless of the circumstances. If it helps to put it in a more neutral context, try to think of the word “boy” as a reference to male adolescents: “high school boys’ basketball team, boys locker room, all-boys boarding school (for “boys” 11-18), etc. Have you ever heard of a “high school men’s basketball team”? Probably not. Why? Because male high school students are not generally considered “men”. In the same way, female high school students are usually not considered “women”, and often referred to as “girls”. Is the word “girl” disrespectful in the term “high school girls’ basketball team”? I don’t think so. If it is not disrespectful in this context, there is no reason to think that it is disrespectful to refer to a female adolescent as a “girl”, in any other context.

I simply don’t think the term “pregnant women” alone is appropriate, since a significant number of the pregnant female humans who are helped by CPCs are in fact , adolescent girls. Woman is a term generally used (in North America) only to refer to female people over the age of 18. If a significant percentage of CPC clientele is under 18, the use of “pregnant women” alone is not appropriate, even if “women” is “sometimes” used to refer to any female. In striving for consensus, I think it would be irresponsible to ignore the wider consensus of English usage on the issue. That said, I could live with “pregnant women and adolescents”. -Diego Gravez 01:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's two sides of a coin. You don't want to use women because it connotes people over the age of 18. I don't want to use girls because it connotes individuals who cannot get pregnant. Neither term is perfect. What I meant by disrespectful is that pregnancy and motherhood is associated with womanhood. Someone who is mature enough to have sex and get pregnant, and who is then encouraged to carry the pregnancy the full 9 months and then be a responsible parent deserves the title of "woman" as much as anyone else, right? Running around throwing a ball in middle school gym class is not the same thing as having a baby, so your girls basketball comparison doesn't exactly work. Maybe this will help: before we proceed, do you have sources that state that a significant number of CPC's clients are "girls"? How can we verify the age of clients? Where are the reliable sources? I found a source that used "woman" exclusively, but I understand that it was just a single CPC in one location. But Care Net's mission also only mentions "women" (there is a part about helping "young people" abstain from sex). -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. No, I don't have any sources that specifically state that a significant number of CPC clients are minors. It was a logical assumption based on reliable abortion statistics. Since around 20% of the 1.3 million (260,000) yearly abortions in the US are performed on individuals 19 years of age and younger (including around 1% (13,000) on girls under 15), it seems reasonable to me that, since a large part of the mission of most CPCs is to dissuade people in crisis from having abortions, the demographic breakdown of their clientele would be similar to to the cross section of women who actually have abortions. In fact, I would assume that it would be more heavily weighted toward younger, financially insecure, clients for whom an unplanned pregnancy would more likly be a "crisis". You are correct that much of the information coming from CPCs themselves refers only to "women". I assume this use is a calculated choice and I will refrain from speculating on the motivation behind it, but I don't read it as an indication that their clients are all, or mostly, adult women. Remember, I am not advocating including unsourced assumptions about CPC clients in the article, I am simply saying that "girls" do become pregnant, do seek abortions, and based on the mission of CPCs, does anyone believe that a pregnant "girl" (minor) seeking help in a crisis would ever be turned away. In this sense, CPCs do, or potentially would, help "women" of any age (i.e., "women and girls", "women and adolescents", etc.). Diego Gravez 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

• ...pregnancy and motherhood is associated with womanhood.

This is very true. And that is why most most Americans discourage (or at the very least, do not endorse) sexual activity among "girls" who are too young to deal with the consequences of pregnancy, STDs, emotional wounds, etc. Adolescents are discouraged from having sex and becoming pregnant precisely because they have not yet achieved womanhood. One reason that (underage) teen pregnancy is considered a "problem", is that pregnancy and motherhood are so strongly associated with womanhood, yet adolescents are not yet women. Engaging in riskful behavior that results in pregnancy does not somehow turn an adolescent girl into a woman.

• Someone who is mature enough to have sex and get pregnant, and who is then encouraged to carry the pregnancy the full 9 months and then be a responsible parent deserves the title of "woman" as much as anyone else.

In our culture, the "title" of "woman", connotes legal status and reflects cultural norms. In certain cultures, where it is common and accepted for girls in their early teens to marry and bear children, you would have a point. In such a culture, I could understand a thirteen year old girl being considered a woman. But against the background of mainstreem American culture, I would never consider a thirteen year old girl a "woman", regardless of her status as a mother. As for "being mature enough to have sex and get pregnant", I would make an enormous distinction between physical and emotional maturity. Unfortunately, most girls attain the physical ability to reproduce (and the desire for sex) long before they achieve the decision-making skills and brain development necessary to fully evaluate the consequences of their actions. [6][7] When girls do become pregnant as a result of irresponsible behavior, I think it is commendable if they accept the consequences of their actions, bring the baby to term, and decide to keep the baby (or give it up for adoption, depending on the cirsumstances). Though it may be commendable, responsible decision-making is not a hallmark of womanhood. Womanhood is determined on the basis of age (and possibly life status), not responsibility.

• "...throwing a ball in middle school gym class is not the same thing as having a baby, so your girls basketball comparison doesn't exactly work."

Childbirth is very different from playing basketball, but that is not the point. If it is appropriate to refer to an adolescent female as a "girl" on the basketball court (and in many other situations), based solely on her age and status (an unemancipated dependant who is still in school receiving compulsory education), then pregnancy and motherhood would not automatically make her a woman. A "girl" on the basketball court could very well be pregnant, and she could even be a mother, but she is still a girl, and it would not be disrespectful to refer to her as such. -Diego Gravez 18:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think the colloquial usage of girl matters much in this case, and I support Andrew c. I would point out that age of consent varies very widely around the world. If I recall correctly, it is as low as 12 or 14 in Spain. Because of this, I think “woman,” although perhaps imperfect, is the best term because it is meta-cultural, especially if used in the same sense as “man” ‘in “mankind”. Furthermore, I would again assert that, biologically speaking, if a female can become pregnant, she is a “woman.” When a 13 year old finds herself pregnant, she bears in her flesh the full weight and consequence of what it means to be a woman regardless of how much her culture has infantilized her. If she carries to term, she may die in childbirth or be a mother. Would you say that a female who has gone through childbirth and who bears full responsibility for the wellbeing of another is a “girl”? If she decides to abort and kills the fetus that would have become her child, she will carry that decision with her the rest of her life. Would your really call someone a “girl” after they have made a decision of such grave moral consequence? I don’t think so. Having said all that, I would add that I don’t mind Photouploaded’s “Pregnant women and adolescents".LCP 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for the article (unrelated to above woman/girl topic)

• Include mention of the estimated number of CPCs in the US/elsewhere.

I think this would be useful information to put in the introduction so readers can get a sense of the prevelance of CPCs, especially in comparison to Planned Parenthood and other agencies who provide abortions/referrals.

• Include a summary of the history of CPCs

To me, it seems like CPCs came out of nowhere. I now see (and read about) them more and more everywhere I go. Is this growth part of an organized effort on behalf of Pro-life groups, or have they always been around and I just haven't noticed?

• Funding section - mention Focus on the Family as a major source of funding

specific mention of Focus on the Family seems warranted since they have been instrumental in helping many CPCs to procure ultrasound machines. CPCs with these machines are often much more successful at dissuading women from chossing abortion than those CPCs without ultrasound [8].

• Funding section - state funding from the sale of "Choose Life" license plates

The sale of these plates in the 13 states that have them provides a significant source of income for CPCs and pro-adoption groups. (I don't have a specific source, but I know I read this somewhere)

• Criticism section - seems a little one-sided

Well of course it is one-sided, the heading is "criticism". How about renaming the section "controversy" or something similar. At the very least, include the CPC response to the accusations referred to in the section. Have they responded? How do they answer the criticisms? This is important for WP:NPOV because only including the criticisms without a response could imply that they have more merit than they actually do. Let readers decide whether the criticism is valid by reading both sides of the story. (I'm assuming there are two sides, but maybe there aren't).

• Information on post-abortion counseling services

Post-abortion counseling is offered by many CPCs, yet it is not listed in the "services provided" section.

I would add these things myself, but I am new to this article (and subject). Is there a specific reason that the information proposed above would be objectionable? I personally don't understand all the reasons why CPCs are such a controversial issue, so I don't want to make any assumptions. -Diego Gravez 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think those are all reasonable things for an article to-do list as long as we remember to keep things sourced and verifiable. I'd be glad to try and work on some of those points to distribute some work.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing the deleted text

• established by pro-life supporters that work to discourage pregnant women from choosing abortion.

"Our vision is to help build a culture of life in which every pregnant woman is offered the support she needs to choose life for her unborn baby." and "The good news is we are reaching women who are considered abortion-vulnerable or abortion-prone with alternatives to abortion." and "Care Net is strategically planting new pregnancy centers in these urban communities in order to provide needed abortion alternatives"

• Many crisis pregnancy centers are affiliated with pro-life Christian groups.

"Care Net was formed as a pro-life ministry in 1975 and was originally known as the Christian Action Council. Since the early 1980's, Care Net has been assisting the evangelical and pro-life work of pregnancy centers across North America." Also note that "We carry out this mission by supporting the largest network of pregnancy centers in North America"

• Those which are may be affiliated with a specific church, or the center may operate as a parachurch organization.

I had a harder time sourcing this. There is this, which seems to be self-published and from 1994, but it's from a Christian perspective that the pro-life movement is too humanist/secular, and not Christian enough (strange position, eh?) The quote is "Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) is a generic name for any church or parachurch organization that counsels women against abortion". Here is an example of a CPC that states it is a para-church organization "Birthmother Ministries, Inc. (Birthmothers®) is a Christian, non-profit, volunteer-based, para-church organization dedicated to providing nonjudgmental assistance to any woman facing an unplanned pregnancy." And here is a handbook for starting a CPC that states it's probably better to start a parachurch organization.

• Religious literature, including Bibles

Here is a CPC that offers religious literature on their webpage. Here is a press release/community newsletter that states they gave away over 1000 free bibles. (also note the PACE Bible study post-abortion program)

• and contraception.

here is a CPC that doesn't give BC referrals. Here is a government document showing an agreement that NY CPCs run by Birthright will make it clear that they do not do BC referrals.

I seriously do not understand the last edits, so I'd appreciate specific reasons why the information was removed, and cites sources backing up or contradicting the claims and what I cited above. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute - categorization

User:Severa has recently removed this article from Category:Abortion debate, leaving it only in Category:Pro-life movement. My view is that CPCs are subject to such intense debate that this article is better categorized in Category:Abortion debate. CPCs are subject to intense criticism as well as Congressional investigation. CPCs are not only part of the pro-life movement, they are better described as part of the abortion debate. Photouploaded 14:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The following post has been copied from User talk:Severa.

I find linear categorization structures to be the most navigable. When a system is more open form, allowing for extensive cross-categorization, I find it can become circuitous, with categories and subcategories looping back on each other rather confusingly.

Cross-listing an article in two subcategories of the same parent category can also give a false impression of the overall number of articles that there are on a particular subject. If the categorization structure is "Category:Abortion -> Category:Abortion debate -> Category:Pro-life movement + Category:Pro-choice movement" then placing the article Crisis pregnancy center in both Category:Abortion debate and Category:Pro-life movement gives the impression that there are more Abortion debate-related articles than there actually exist. This is why I try to only list an article in two subcategories of Category:Abortion if two sufficiently different categories apply to the same topic (such as I'm Not Sorry.net in both Category:Abortion in media and Category:Pro-choice organizations in the United States).

I don't feel that there is sufficient difference between Category:Abortion debate and Category:Pro-life movement to warrant listing Crisis pregnancy center in both. Yes, crisis pregnancy centres are debated on all sides, but, then, so is the Genocide Awareness Project. Both CPCs and the GAP are exclusively aspects of the pro-life movement. It's not like the Societal attitudes towards abortion, Libertarian perspectives on abortion, or Ethical aspects of abortion, which are clearly more generalized in their coverage. -Severa (!!!) 14:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to put this category in "pro-life movement" because CPCs are a product of that movement (the other side doesn't have CPCs, but instead "women's clinics" or something of the sort). I also believe, except in cases of top tier articles, it's not appropriate to place an article in both a subcat and it's parent. I'm not convinced that CPCs are more associated with the general debate than those who run them, so I believe the "pro-life movement" category is sufficient.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we categorize it in both, I am suggesting we categorize what has become a notable item in the abortion debate appropriately, in Category:Abortion debate. I disagree with your assessment, that CPCs are exclusively an aspect of the pro-life movement. Photouploaded 16:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So can you name or cite any "pro-choice" or non-pro-life CPCs? A google search for "Pro-choice crisis pregnancy centers" has zero hits. If you are making the argument that CPCs are not pro-life organizations, then we need sources, and we need to change the lead and scope of this article drastically. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? That is not my argument at all. What I am saying is that CPCs are more easily recognized as a facet of the abortion debate than as part of the pro-life movement. Category:Pro-life movement and Category:Pro-choice movement were only created two days ago and I contest this usage of them. Photouploaded 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy centres are exclusively pro-life services inasmuch as the Genocide Awareness Project is a pro-life display. Both CPCs and the GAP serve to stir up discussion on all sides of the fence — pro-choice, pro-life, and neutral — but this doesn't translate into either being more a part of the general debate over abortion than the movement which opposes abortion. It's original research to suggest otherwise until you can provide a source which demonstrates a crisis pregnancy centre that operates from a pro-choice or neutral perspective. -Severa (!!!) 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal preference in this matter. I understand where Photouploaded is coming from, and based on his arguments alone, I would have no objection to putting CPC in the debate section. However, I think Andrew C and Severa have a stronger argument.LCP 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

recent edits and recent revisions to edits

Hopefully, my edit summary explained my changes well enough, but I'd be glad to discuss things further. I could not explain my last edit in the space provided in the edit summary, so I will explain here. I removed the following:

In fact, many centers are licensed medical facilities, that operate with the help of doctors and nurses who volunteer their time and efforts free of charge. CPC's are increasingly seeking to become medical facilities so that they can offer ultrasounds to pregnant women, an effective tool in educating women about fetal development and discouraging abortion.

The cited source does not say anything about "many centers are licensed medical facilities". In fact, the word "licensed" does not appear anywhere on the page. Also note, that "volunteer" and "free" are not found in the body text of the page. There is no information about "increasingly seeking to become...".

I would say that perhaps we could summarize this citation as such:

Focus on the Family has sponsored a program to bring ultrasound services to CPCs, stating that "women who see their babies on ultrasound are far less likely to seek abortions than those without access to such an option".

The only thing is we list "Ultrasound of the fetus(es)" under services already. What sticks out to me is that the inserted text (which I deleted, and quote above) seems to be responding to the criticism that CPCs are not medical facilities are are not licensed. And there is nothing that I have found on the heartlink site that says that there is a movement among CPCs to become licensed medical facilities. What do others thinks? I think we could add a citation to support the "services" section, but I don't see how this ultrasound movement relates to where the remove text was placed in the article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I remember reading a New York Times (though it could have been the Wa. Post) article which stated that Focus On The Family (aka Heartlink) is making a concerted effort, through funding and training, to convert CPCs to licensed medical facilities able to offer well-women exams in additon to ultrasound. I'm not sure how much of an impact this effort has had overall, though. I think I saved the ref. I'll look for it when I have a chance. That would be a point worth elaborating on, perhaps in the funding section. — DIEGO ^talk 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Purpose, prevelance, and services

There have been some changes to the lead recently, and I think it's time that we discuss things so we can work together and all be on the same page. On October 25th, the first sentence of the lead, which had previously said "Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers,[1][2] are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to discourage pregnant women from choosing abortion." was changed to "Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers,[1][2] are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to provide abortion alternatives to women facing unplanned pregnancies." This was almost immediately changed by another editor to "Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers,[1][2] are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to discourage pregnant women from choosing abortion and provide them with information regarding its alternatives."

I thought that wording was vague, so I added a "specify" tag to the last clause of the sentence, asking what these "alternatives" were. The original sentence was then restored by a 4th editor 2 days later after my concerns were not addressed.

Now, flash forward 2 weeks and here we are. The disputed lead has basically been restored in the form of "Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers,[1][2] are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that provide abortion alternatives to women facing unplanned pregnancy."

I mentioned previously on talk that I thought using the word "choosing" was a bit loaded and that we should probably use another term. Therefore, I suggest basically restoring the long standing first sentence as follows: "Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers,[1][2] are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to discourage pregnant women from having abortions." (I bolded the change).-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say "choosing" is loaded?LCP 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of the pro-"choice" movement. I also noted I forgot to get to the rest of the lead (as my title implied). The recent changes address international prevalence and the nature of the services provided. Both the before and after were unsourced, so this clearly needs sourcing. How can we verify which version is more accurate? Are the more prevalent in the US than internationally? Do they offer supportive services or not? Where are the reliable sources to answer these questions. Without sources, both versions are unacceptable (and the dispute in the way these parts are phrased simply illustrates the importances of verifiability and sourcing here on wikipedia).-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion I mentioned can be found here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the above. I still don't get precisely how "choose" is loaded.LCP 01:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to be more clear. I agree that it can be read as "loaded," but I am not at all sure how I see it is how everyone else sees it. As I see it, there is nothing about in its connotations that makes it indecorous for use here.LCP 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the term "having" is better than "choosing," and there really shouldn't be a big brew-ha-ha over this -- next item please. LotR 19:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The use of the word "choose" in this instance isn't commenting that abortion should be an option left open to women. It's reflective of the fact that, when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, there is a choice Y and a choice Z. The existence of multiple options implies only an ability to choose Y over Z — it does not necessarily mean that there is a right to choose Y over Z. I can see the same principle that applies to "choose to have an abortion" vs. "have an abortion" also applying to "choose to have the baby" vs. "have the baby." I think avoiding the word "choose" actually does worse by NPOV because it gives the impression that the decision to take a particular course of action has been coerced. -Severa (!!!) 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Using the word "choose" does not remove the possibility or connotation of coercion -- a person can be coerced into making a choice. The point is that the CPC counselor cares not about what a pregnant woman "chooses" but rather what she actually "does." One can make a choice, then change her mind. The word "chooses" is also politically charged in this context. LotR 12:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is completely in line with Severa's. I second the use of "choose."LCP 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the biggest problem with the term "chooses" is that it has political connotations in the context, even though it is a stronger verb. That's the unfortunate state of affairs. I think that is what Andrew was alluding to and I happened to concur, but it's gray-area enough where I won't continue challenging it. LotR 14:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The connotations of “choose” are not inappropriate in this case. NPOV does not mean “no point of view,” and in this case, all of the connotations of “choose” are appropriate. Women choose, and to suggest anything else is demeaning to women. It is using weaker language that is deeply problematic. The reductio ad absurdum of the movement away from “choose” is to use the passive voice: “…to dissuade abortions from being had by women.” And that is silly. I am open to hearing an explication of “choose” that might illustrate why it is inappropriate, but to date no explication has been forthcoming. To reject it merely because “it has political connotations” or “it is loaded” is tantamount to suggesting that NPOV = “no point of view.”LCP 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute - lede

I made an edit with several parts, here. LCP immediately reverted my edit, stating disagreement and stating that another user found it to "pass muster". I don't appreciate this heavy-handed approach, nor the two-against-one mentality. The version I enacted is actually a lot closer to the long-standing version, so I'd appreciate a rationale for the new additions rather than a "this is the way it is now, deal with it" attitude.

Here is the diff that shows the article before I got to it, and after. My rationale is:

Line 1: "provide abortion alternatives" is a weasel-worded statement. What does this even mean? What exactly are these "alternatives" and how does a CPC "provide" them? The way I see it, there is exactly one alternative to abortion, and that is not aborting and seeing what happens. The "alternatives" that don't involve fetal or neonatal death are 1) adoption and 2) parenting. CPCs don't "provide" parenting, nor do they "provide" adoption. I have attempted to clarify these "alternatives" in these two edits.

Also, LCP's revert killed the Wikilinks I added to Care Net, Heartbeat International and Birthright; another reason to avoid wholesale reverts.

Line 14: I think it's fair to say that the info they provide is favorable to the pro-life viewpoint. They are very frank that they do not provide abortion services, nor do they provide referrals to abortion services. Let's not beat around the bush about it.

Line 39: It's not appropriate to insert unsourced editorial commentary on the limits of the scope of the Congressional report. Nor is it appropriate to refer to Henry Waxman as "pro-choice advocate Henry Waxman".

The claim that offering pregnancy testing, ultrasound and STD testing makes a CPC a "medical facility" is unsourced. I think we can make better use of this source: http://www.nifla.org/faqs.asp than we were by saying "these are staffed with volunteer (medical staff) that donate their time because they care about women and their unborn children. " The phrase "unborn children" certainly has to go.

Thoughts? Photouploaded 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t appreciate your ongoing op-ed on other people’s changes. I think your edits were heavy handed and agenda driven, similar to other rejected edits you’ve made in several other places in Wikipedia. I also think your rejection of Waxman as a pro-choice advocate is specious. However, do respect a few of the changes you have made, so moving forward I will take a less “heavy handed” approach.LCP 18:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

LCP, your most recent edit changed the first sentence. The prior version is:

"Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers, are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to discourage pregnant women from choosing abortion, and to persuade women to carry their pregnancies to term."

Your version is:

"Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers, are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to inform women facing unplanned pregnancy of abortion alternatives and to persuade women to carry their pregnancies to term."

I find the phrase "abortion alternatives" to be unnecessarily euphemistic, since there are only two alternatives: parenting and adoption (which I described in the next sentence that I added.) If we are going to frankly describe what CPCs encourage pregnant women to do (keep their pregnancies), we can be just as frank in describing what CPCs discourage women from doing (abort their pregnancies).

Also, I find the sentence stating that CPCs have "converting to medical facilities" misleading, since in the Criticism section, it's clear that one of the main criticisms is that the pregnancy tests, ultrasound, and STD tests do not comprise comprehensive womens' health care, that applying the phrase "medical facility" is inappropriate. If you want to list which facilities, or what percentage of them offer on-site obstetric and gynecological care, go ahead. It's too vague as it is, and, again, the phrase "unborn children" is POV and inappropriate. Photouploaded 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "abortion alternatives" is vague and believe that we should state what CPCs do and do not encourage plainly. I think, in order to test how well a particular wording is able to stand up, it can be useful to try to push it to the point at which cracks start to show. The problem with the "abortion alternatives" wording is that, paired with the "carry their pregnancies to term" proviso, it doesn't exclude things like infanticide and child abandonment. I know this would be a pretty unlikely interpretation for any reader to make, especially given the reference to pro-lifers, but I'd suggest we pare down our options by Occam's razor. It's probably simpler to go with the plain version than to refactor the "abortion alternatives" version so that it doesn't lend straw for the aforementioned strawman. -Severa (!!!) 21:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand; what is "the plain version"? What are you suggesting we do? Thank you... Photouploaded 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By "plain", I mean "straightforward," as in the version which clearly states what CPCs do and do not support. -Severa (!!!) 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Severa's thinking here. The list should be more explicit and inclusive.LCP 16:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Encourage"

It strikes me that it's unnecessarily verbose to mention that CPCs "encourage" women to carry their pregnancies to term. In the absence of medical complications, It goes without saying that a pregnancy which is not aborted will be carried to term. No "encouragement" is necessary. The main purpose of CPCs is to prevent abortion. They mainly work to discourage abortion. The next sentence states that they may advise women regarding whether to keep the child or put it up for adoption. If a pregnant woman does not abort her pregnancy, those are her two choices. Mentioning how CPCs might advise women regarding which of these two to choose, it covers what was previously referred to as "encouraging". Photouploaded 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is NPOV. And so I feel I need to point out something about NPOV from WP:NPOV: “As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'." Now I will consider the use of “encouraging.” Encouraging a woman to carry her fetus to term is much different than “discouraging” her from having an abortion. “Encouraging” denotes that the mission of CPCs is to provide courage where it is lacking. In other words, in the case where courage is lacking, they strive to give something (namely courage) to women who come to them for counsel. This is much different from merely “discouraging”, which literally means “to take courage away.” The distinction is very important, so the use of “encouraging” it is not at all verbose. Since it is not verbose, the next question is whether it violates WP:NPOV. At the most superficial level, the answer is "no." CFCs say they encourage. Who is the Wikipedia editor to naysay their claim? But that is not really the core issue. The core issue has to do with what constitutes a NPOV for this article. I assert that above and beyond the question “encourage” and “choose” (see above), writing about CFCs in a generally positive tone does not violate WP:NPOV. Why? Because the mission of the CFC (namely, to reduce abortion) is in ideological agreement with both pro-life and pro-choice movements. While there is considerable debate about whether a woman should have a right to abortion on demand, there is currently no question in the political debate about whether or not abortion is desirable. Partisans of both major political parties in the United States agree that in an economically just word, there would be no need for abortion. Consequently, the mission of CPCs, (namely, to provide alternatives to otherwise desperate women) is compatible with both pro-life and pro-choice ideologies. While one might find fault with some CPCs on some specifics (as currently illustrated in the article), to suggest that the general idea or mission of the CPC is anything but acceptable to the vast majority of readers is not unlike suggesting that there are a significant number of important scientists who object to the ideas of global warming and habitat destruction. There are in fact a few scientists that reject the ideas of global warming and habitat destruction. Similarly, there are editors who object not only to CFC ideology about life (as noted in the article) but also to its general mission of reducing the number of abortions. They strive to sterilize the article. However, WP:NPOV states, “Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” In other words, the voice of those who whish to sterilize all information about CPCs should be given as much attention as the voices of those who deny the moon landing.LCP 17:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what these vague accusations against unnamed parties have to do with the integrity of the article. I think that the sentence about advising women regarding whether to parent or adopt gives a decent overview of what they "encourage". The rest of the article describes what services they offer in more detail. I don't agree with your dissection of the word "discourage", I think it's a fair, neutral way to say that they are trying to prevent women from doing something. Focusing only on a rosy view of what what CPCs are trying to lead women towards is much more of a sanitization than refusing to acknowledge the choice from which CPCs are trying to steer women away. Photouploaded 18:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting your previous comment. I had to laugh when you used the word “tedious” again. I agree that it is important to say that CPCs oppose abortion. And it would be wrong to portray them in a dishonestly rosy light. I think the current lead covers the ground that both of us want covered, and the article does not present CFCs in a rosy light. I did not name a party in my accusations because I think that it is difficult at times for people, including myself, to own their motivations when they are passionate about their beliefs. If there is any truth to what I was suggesting, I thought the editor in question might find it easier to consider what I had to say if didn’t throw down the gauntlet.LCP 18:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your previous comments are in italics:

Similarly, there are editors who object not only to CFC ideology about life (as noted in the article) but also to its general mission of reducing the number of abortions.

1) Who are these editors?

They strive to sterilize the article.

2) Can you give examples of edits that you view as "sterilizing" the article?

However, WP:NPOV states, “Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” In other words, the voice of those who whish to sterilize all information about CPCs should be given as much attention as the voices of those who deny the moon landing."

3) Can you give examples of which edits serve to "sterilize all information about CPCs"?

4) Can you give examples of which edits promote "minority views"?

I thought the editor in question might find it easier to consider what I had to say if didn’t throw down the gauntlet.

5) Who is this editor? Photouploaded 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the POV tag?

I think the current rev [9] reflects all views in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV.LCP 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, the new version is decidedly slanted towards putting CPCs in a rosy light. For this "new version", please see LCP's recent edit series in this diff. Photouploaded 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic with the current lead. LotR 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Which diff did you approve? It's seen several changes recently, by various editors. Photouploaded 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the POV tag now?LCP 02:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition about status as "medical facilities"

LCP added this:

'However, many CPCs have converted to medical facilities in order to provide more services to women, such as a medically valid pregnancy test, fetal ultrasound, and STD testing; these are staffed with volunteer doctors and nurses that donate their time because "they care about women and their unborn children." Most of the women who seek services at CPCs must visit private physicians for prenatal care.

Problems:

1. How many is "many"? We shouldn't say "many" unless we can demonstrate what percentage.
2. "converted to medical facilities". What does this mean, exactly? How do we define "medical facility"? CPCs that offer pregnancy tests and ultrasound are still criticized for not being actual health care centers, since these are typically the only "medical services" they offer. The ultrasounds provided are not in the context of comprehensive prenatal care; if a woman decides to keep her pregnancy, she must go off-site to see a physician for ultrasounds to check on the health of the fetus. The ultrasounds the CPCs provide are not for that purpose, they show them because apparently if a woman sees an ultrasound she will be less likely to abort. It's not medical care.
3. "medically valid" - needlessly verbose
4. "they are staffed" - not true! most have a "managing physician" who, to my understanding, does not provide any medical care of the women who visit the CPCs.
5. "volunteer doctors and nurses"? At which CPCs?

That same NIFLA reference clearly states that very few CPCs have any clinical staff at all. Why was that fact removed? Photouploaded 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped the gun (ergo, I have taken out the separate header).

Thus far, Photouploaded has deleted the following on two occasions even though two different editors have attempted to have in included.

However, many CPCs have converted to medical facilities in order to provide more services to women, such as a medically valid pregnancy test, fetal ultrasound, and STD testing; these are staffed with volunteer doctors and nurses that “donate their time because they care about women and their unborn children.” A few CPC medical facilities offer prenatal care.

LCP 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See above, there are many problems with that statement. Also, the second sentence you included above is different from the one you included in the article (see diff). Photouploaded 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the statement that I "deleted" the paragraph is an unfair characterization. I stated clearly in my edit summary that I was moving the section to the Talk page, so we could iron out the problems here and avoid an edit war. Photouploaded 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the edit war, two different editors have included the passage, and you have twice deleted it. It looks to me like you are the only one initiating an edit war. BTW, the link you provided did not go to the edit summary you alluded to.

Nevertheless, here are my responses, numbered according to your points above:

1. Good point. “Many” should go.

2. Verbiage is from NIFLA.

3. I am ok with taking out “medically valid.”

4. Unless you are published in a source acceptable to Wikipedia, your “understanding” and claims are immaterial.

5. Irrelevant. Again, your criticism is OR.

A revision in light of your valid criticisms:

However, CPCs can convert to medical facilities in order to provide more services to women, such as pregnancy tests, fetal ultrasounds, and STD testing; these are staffed with volunteer doctors and nurses that “donate their time because they care about women and their unborn children.” A few CPC medical facilities offer prenatal care.

LCP 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to improve the section, but it's still very problematic. The phrase "these are staffed with volunteer doctors and nurses that “donate their time because they care about women and their unborn children" is not sourced anywhere. Do you have any sources at all for this?

The NIFLA webpage states, "The basic medical services provided are limited in scope... Such services usually are limited to pregnancy diagnosis and ultrasound examination to determine the viability of the pregnancy." The NIFLA verbiage "convert to medical facilities" is ambiguous and unclear in its meaning.

Also, your recent changes to the lede sentence about who criticizes CPCs is problematic. It's not only "pro-choice organizations and politicians" who criticize CPCs. The South Dakota Supreme Court, the ACLU, the CDC, and even Birthright (a pro-life group) have criticized CPCs. There is no need to cherry-pick from the long list of critic and provide only those in the lede. Either everyone should be listed or none should, and my vote is none because it would be better to expand on that in the Criticism section. Photouploaded 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with with Photouploaded in regards to who is criticizing CPCs. I have altered the sentence to allow room for the implication that CPCs are not only criticized by avid pro-choice supporters, while also making it clear that there is a lot of pro-choice criticism. Hopefully my changes are a good compromise. I also removed the NARAL ranking comments. The way they were presented seemed like a parenthetical side statement. Also, bringing up an partially unrelated ranking from a not so notable organization works to bias the reader. How does mentioning the ranking work to color the rest of the sentence? I believe stating there party and state, and stating what our cited sources say is enough. Imagine this scenario. Say Rich Santorum publishes a press release critical of the fur industry. In the past, PeTA has applauded Rick Santorum when it comes to animal rights issues, but there is no official comment from PeTA in relation to this hypothetical anti-fur press release. Would it be appropriate to mention a controversial organization's approval of a former senator in this context? I think not, and I believe in this article, the facts stand strong enough on their own without bringing up a controversial organization's approval of these politicians.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. I appreciate your rewording of the lead. I was in the middle of responding when you posted. I was saying that Photouploaded is absolutely correct in the objections he just raised to my recent edits in the lead talking about who was criticizing CPCs. He was also correct in protesting “...volunteer doctors and nurses....” I didn’t read the source closely enough. Thanks to Photouploaded for pointing that out. Here’s a new, fully sourced version of the most troublesome paragraph:

However, CPCs can convert to medical facilities, under the supervision and direction of a licensed physician, in order to provide more services to women, such as pregnancy tests, fetal ultrasounds, and STD testing. While a few CPC medical facilities offer prenatal care, most refer to private physicians.

Regarding the voting records of the congressmen who have opposed CPCs, I agree with your criticism of the prose. However, I think it is important to point out that the two congressmen mentioned have always voted 100% pro-choice. In other words, it should be made clear that these representatives would have been unsympathetic to CPCs even before any research was forthcoming. In a similar scenario, you’d want to point out that a Vatican historian is affiliated with the Vatican if he is arguing that a film is anti-Catholic. How would you communicate that information? Labeling Waxman as “pro-choice” has already been rejected by Photouploaded.LCP 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LCP, your idea that "these representatives would have been unsympathetic to CPCs even before any research was forthcoming" is a stretch of the imagination. I don't think it's important to cobble together various sources with the intention to paint such a POV picture. Also, my guess is that plenty of pro-choice supporters would be entirely in favor of places for women who are facing unplanned pregnancies to go, where they could discuss and become educated about ALL of their options (abortion, parenting and adoption) in a non-judgmental, agenda-free atmosphere. Photouploaded 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Andrew. It's factual and concise. Photouploaded 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Are you really saying that the fact that both Waxman and Maloney ALWAYS vote pro-choice bears no relationship whatsoever to their respective reports on CPCs, that they are just a couple of “non-judgmental, agenda-free” politicians who just happen to ALWAYS vote pro-choice and who just happen to have found problems with CPCs which just happen to be pro-life, and that anyone here at Wikipedia who would suggest that Waxman et al’s records are material to this issue is engaging in flights of fancy and fomenting POV conflict where none need exist? Is that really what you are saying? Wow, talk about “stretch of the imagination.”

So, back to my original question, how do we incorporate information about Waxman et al’s exclusively pro-choice voting records? LCP 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LCP, conflating the idea of a hypothetical, agenda-free "neo-CPC" with the suggestion that I said that Waxman and Maloney are "agenda-free" is just silly. Need I point out again that a pro-choice voting record or personal belief is not a prerequisite for finding CPCs' tactics to be inappropriate? Entities such as the CDC, the Texas Attorney General, the South Dakota Supreme Court, even the pro-life group Birthright opposed CPCs' deceptive tactics. Obviously a person or group need not be pro-choice to oppose these tactics, they can even be pro-life and oppose them. A Congressperson's pro-choice voting record is irrelevant to their opposition to deceit. I'm going to wait and see what Andrew c has to say. Photouploaded 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Need I point out that you again have constructed a straw man out of my ideas by taking them out of context and putting words into my mouth? Are you really saying that the fact that both Waxman and Maloney ALWAYS vote pro-choice bears no relationship whatsoever to their respective reports on CPCs? A single “yes” or “no” answer would suffice.LCP 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, but as I have proven, a person or organization does not need to be pro-choice to find CPCs' tactics to be deceptive and inappropriate. Your insistence on highlighting Waxman and Maloney's voting records looks very similar to your previous attempt to make it look, in the lede, as though only "pro-choice organizations and politicians" objected to these tactics. It just isn't the case. Photouploaded 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from this discussion. Here's why: The instance Photouploaded cites was an uncharacteristic oversight, and I retracted immediately and gave Photouploaded due credit for noticing my oversight. I therefore resent Photouploaded attempt to use it as warrant for his argument. I also need to point out that Photouploaded fails to assume good faith by suggesting that I scheme, use “tactics,” to have articles changed to my liking. Furthermore, in this discussion, Photouploaded has so far called my comments “tedious,”[10] “a flight of the imagination,” and “silly.” Photouploaded has also called me “unfair” and suggested that my contributions were “cobbled together” with the intent of causing a “POV conflict.” I have consistently ignored these barbs or responded with mild sarcasm. At this point, however, I need to stop. The thought of writing another word to Photouploaded makes me want to heave. I would rather spend my days trying to carry water in a sieve.LCP 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you dip it in wax, the water's surface tension will make it possible.

What you call "mild sarcasm" included accusing an "unnamed editor" (gee, who could it be?) of attempting to "sterilize" the article, you claimed outright that they personally object to "the mission of reducing the number of abortions", and compared the credibility of this editor's views to that of those who deny global warming and the moon landing. Somehow, my slightly colorful descriptions pale in terms of relative incivility.

Rather than depart, I suggest you take one of these and wait with me to see if any other editors have some useful input. Andrew c? Photouploaded 01:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well . . . maybe you’re right. I too can be an ass in my own way. I’ll dip my sieve in wax and stick around. Thanks for the invitation. I won’t need the antiemetic, however, as your jokes did the trick.LCP 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, first of all, we should all maybe just take a step back and breathe deeply. If the debate is starting to frustrate you (either one of you) perhaps you could wait a day or two to respond, instead of writing in the heat of the moment. I believe, while there have been minor quips on both sides, we have been working fairly well together, and things have been pretty darn civil when compared to other heated topics. I think we are doing a good job overall, so pat yourselves on your back for that. As for my personal opinion on this issues, I'll respond to LCP's comment Are you really saying that the fact that both Waxman and Maloney ALWAYS vote pro-choice bears no relationship whatsoever to their respective reports on CPCs? This implication, by itself, is original research. While there very well may be a correlation, we cannot make the case without a source. Like I said above, we should just try to summarize our sources and state relevant facts. State that the Democratic congressman from California said X. Because of statements in the Democratic party platform, it is clear to me that "pro-choice" is implied by stating the congressperson's party, and therefore do not need any extraneous qualifiers.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew c. I hadn’t thought of the fact that the page states they are Democrats and that does imply that they are pro-choice. I think I am done.LCP 02:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. Photouploaded 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

Per WP:BOLD, I made some major changes to the structure (not so much the content) of this article. I'm pretty pleased with the results! See the previous version for comparison.

The main changes that I made were:

• Created a "Prevalence" section, detailing how many CPCs there are, where they are, and who runs them. Moved the info about the major CPC orgs here.
• Split the "Services" section into two smaller sections, one called "Non-medical services" and one called "Medical services". To the latter of these, added a reworked version of the paragraph surrounding the NIFLA reference. Added a "Policies" subsection.
• Under the header called "Funding", created a subsection titled "Federally-funded CPCs". Moved the Waxman report and all info specific to this type of CPC here.

A few Wikilinks later and a duplicate listing of the CPC orgs removed, and I think the article looks a lot better. Tell me what you think! Photouploaded 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits look terrific. Nice work.LCP 16:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

References

It was quite a job, but I finished reformatting all of the references with the appropriate {{cite}} templates. Please use the cite templates when citing sources. The page for each template explains in detail the purpose of each field. Photouploaded 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Word choice

LotR has thrice reverted my edit where I changed the phrase "provide a referral" to the phrase "provide contact information". The phrase "provide a referral" is typically used in the context of an HMO, where one doctor refers a patient to another (often more specialized) physician. The word "referral", in this usage, refers to a transfer of patient care. As of 2006, 75% of CPCs offered no medical services at all. I find it highly inappropriate to describe a non-medical organization's act of giving out the name and phone number of a doctor as "providing a referral", particularly in light of the criticism and legal judgments against CPCs for deceptively portraying themselves as medical facilities. We must uphold NPOV, and using the word "referral" to describe what CPCs do fails that. The phrase "provide contact information" is entirely factual and upholds NPOV. Thoughts? Photouploaded (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Photouploaded brings up a valid concern that a referral can denote something specific which CPCs do not do. I see no harm in a simple rephrase to clear up any ambiguities or misleading statements. If LotR does not like the proposed wording, I'm sure we can find some other compromise.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Andrew c. I'm open to suggestions for the wording. Photouploaded (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still disagree. And for the record, I have reverted twice, not 3x; my first edit was modifications to the first edits by Photouploaded, who in his/her edit summary claimed that "not all women are referred", to which I countered that some are. First off, there are several edits to consider, which I will go through one by one. The phrase I am first focusing on is "some refer women to private physicians for obstetric care." This, as I have already indicated in my edit summaries, is completely legitimate and NPOV word usage. I provided internet links that back up this line of reasoning (e.g., Google "physician referral"). The context definition of "refer" on http://www.answers.com/refer is "To direct to a source for help or information". Note carefully the context meaning -- it is to direct one to a source for help, not merely to provide contact info (with the connotation being "see ya!"). I am aware of at least one CPC that pays for the first office visit with the referred physician. Also, the context in the article is clearly not an HMO -- this article makes no mention of "HMO", and actually takes great pains to make sure the reader knows that CPCs are not "medical facilities." If we are to compromise as Andrew proposes, I am willing to allow the change to the sentence "CPCs may also provide referrals to outside agencies" to that proposed by Photouploaded. While I still don't think that this was, strictly speaking, incorrect, I can see how "provide a referral" may be misunderstood. Moving on to the sentence "...contrasted with clinics that provide pregnancy options counseling which, unlike CPCs, may offer referrals for abortion" was given a "disputed" tag, although I don't think this was originally in contention between Photouploaded and myself. Finally, the last sentence in question "...CPCs generally do not provide referrals for abortion or access to contraception" can be changed, but I want to see it reworded from the version proposed by Photouploaded. Here's a stab: "CPCs generally do not recommend abortion as a legitimate alternative for dealing with a crisis pregnancy." LotR (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, here are the sentences in question:

CPCs may also provide referrals to outside agencies that provide medical care, legal aid, or social services.

Most CPCs do not have any medical staff and cannot provide prenatal care, but some refer women to private physicians for obstetric care.

CPCs generally do not provide referrals for abortion or access to contraception.

Here are some suggestions for replacement:

CPCs may also provide the contact information of outside agencies that may provide medical care, legal aid, or social services.

Most CPCs do not have any medical staff on-site, and cannot provide prenatal care. Some may provide the contact information of obstetricians in private practive.

CPCs generally do not assist visitors with access to abortion or to contraception.

I maintain the position that the word "referral" should be substituted with a word or phrase that is less ambiguous and has less of a chance to mislead. Contrary to LotR's suggestion that we change only the first sentence (the one regarding social service agencies), I feel it is most important to change the latter two as well, as these are the instances which are in the context of medical care.

(A side note: there is one more sentence that held the word "referral"; see this diff, in regards to pregnancy options counseling. I reworded it to focus on the meaning of the phrase, avoiding the word "referral" entirely).Photouploaded (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions for these sentences are as follows:

• "CPCs may also provide the contact information of outside agencies that may provide medical care, legal aid, or social services." (As per Photouploaded.)
• "Most CPCs do not have any medical staff and cannot provide prenatal care, but some refer women to private physicians for obstetric care. [web reference]" (Modification of original wording in response to Photouploaded's original edit summary, with reference introduced, here; I maintain that this is legitimate, NPOV and better wording (i.e., "to refer", rather than "to provide contact information"). There are plenty of mere websites that claim to provide physician referral services, rather than physician contact info. There is nothing explicitly medical about referring someone, and the context is clearly non-medical.)
• "CPCs generally do not recommend abortion as a legitimate alternative for dealing with a crisis pregnancy." (Alternative to both original and Photouploaded's proposed change, which introduced the POV wording "...do not assist visitors with access to...".)

Thus, I am willing to fully concede one sentence as per Photouploaded's version. The second sentence was modified in response to Photouploaded's first edit summary. The third sentence is my stab at changing that sentence in efforts to remove "referral." Andrew is asking for compromise and I am attempting to honor this request; if Photouploaded does not like my attempt, then I am awaiting counter-proposals to this effect. LotR (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You can make a show out of your supposed "willingness to concede" if you want, but you're not budging an inch on the one instance that sounds most misleading. I have already explained exactly what is unacceptable about the word "referral", which Andrew c seems to see as reasonable... yet you are insisting on it.

The meaning of "most CPCs do not offer medical care, but some offer referrals..." sounds almost apologetic. That most CPCs do not offer medical care is a sourced statement. That some may offer the contact info of doctors is another concept. The two concepts are separate. One should not be tacked to the other as an explanation.

The phrasing "as a legitimate alternative for dealing with" is just bad; it leaves a vague statement in the air, of "abortion is not a legitimate alternative". We should just state that unlike Planned Parenthood, CPCs do not assist with access to abortion (whether by recommending it, by giving out the information of doctors who provide it, or by offering it on-site). What is the problem with that? Also, that sentence omits the mention of the anti-contraception stance of most CPCs (which is the other contrast to PP). Andrew c, I'll wait to hear from you. Photouploaded (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with LotR that "refer" by itself is different than "referral". It sounds like a good compromise that LotR is willing to remove the word "referral" from the article if Photouploaded is ok with one instance of the related, but clearly not identical word "refer". I think LotR's third sentence proposal is a bit odd. Does this sentence really need to change from what it currently is? I mean, is it not true that CPCs do not make abortion referrals? With the time of the year and all I cannot devote as much time as I wish to wikipedia, so please accept my apology for my level of involvement. Hope this comment helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew c. LotR, I'm not sure I understand the problem with this version. The first is entirely true. The second is also true, and it makes a clear distinction between the limitations of the service, and a separate service that some CPCs offer. The third is frankly more accurate than the previous version; because it's not merely referrals that they do not provide, it's any kind of "assistance", including discussion of the procedure as an option. I have clarified what I see as the problems with the version using the R word. Would you please clarify what, if any, remaining issues you see with the version I linked above? Thank you. Photouploaded (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

These edits have shown absolutely no signs of "compromise" -- these were the very edits that led to further edits on my part, followed by the current Talk entry. Therefore, I will be reverting this latest edit unless something is done to rectify this. The usage of "to refer" is legitmate English usage and more descriptive than "to provide contact information". I have provided rationale for this which Andrew has accepted. I also took note that the web citation has now been removed on account of its being "POV." This will also be restored or else I will be looking to remove any citations associated with Planned Parenthood on the same grounds. Finally, the third edit needs to be changed. I proposed one such change -- I am not attached to that exact wording, but the previous version is unacceptable as it introduces a POV term "to assist" (i.e., "to help"). LotR (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Revisited

OK, so LotR reverted to a version of the sentence with the dispute template. I don't think it's good to let a dispute template sit there and go stale without anything being resolved, so let's get this over-with:

This is my recent diff; the intermediate edit is mine. Here are the changes I made and why:

I'll do the second paragraph first, it's simpler:

Before: "In contrast to other reproductive health centers, such as those operated by Planned Parenthood, CPCs generally do not provide the contact information of abortion clinics or access to emergency contraception."

After: "In contrast to other reproductive health centers, such as those operated by Planned Parenthood, CPCs generally do not provide the contact information of abortion providers, or access to emergency contraception or birth control."

Changes and rationale:

1. "abortion clinics" is changed to "abortion providers". The grammar is just wrong; reproductive health centers do not "provide the contact information of abortion clinics"; they are the "abortion clinics". Also, not all abortions are performed in clinics; many are performed by private physicians in their private offices. It stands to reason that a pro-life clinic would not give out the name of a doctor that is "harming women" by performing abortion.
2. Is there some reason that "birth control" was removed? All of the pro-life CPC websites I have looked at talk of the dangers of birth control, and mentioning that they do not provide access to BC is a reasonable contrast to the services of "other reproductive health centers".

And the first paragraph:

Before: "Most CPCs do not have any medical staff and cannot provide prenatal care, but some refer women to private physicians for obstetric care.

After: Most CPCs do not have any medical staff and cannot provide prenatal care. Some provide the names of physicians in private practice who will provide obstetric care, but who will not provide abortion.

Changes and rationale:

1. The fact that most CPCs do not have medical staff or provide prenatal care is one fact. That some provide the names of physicians for obstetric care is a separate idea. What do the CPCs that do not provide medical care have to do with the CPCs that provide physicians' names? It's a POV spin to use the word "but"; they're separate concepts that should not be conflated.
2. I strongly oppose the word "refer" on the grounds that it is misleading to use the word in the context of medical care.
3. It's also good to point out that CPCs screen doctors to ensure they are not directing visitors towards abortion providers.

Thoughts? Photouploaded (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

New suggestion

LotR didn't respond directly but did offer a new compromise in this diff:

First paragraph:

Before: "Most CPCs do not have any medical staff and cannot provide prenatal care. Some provide the names of physicians in private practice who will provide obstetric care, but who will not provide abortion."

After: "Most CPCs do not have any medical staff and cannot provide prenatal care. Some will direct pregnant women to physicians in private practice who will provide obstetric care."

Second paragraph:

Before: "In contrast to other reproductive health centers, such as those operated by Planned Parenthood, CPCs generally do not provide the contact information of abortion providers, or access to emergency contraception or birth control."

After: Same thing, minus the last three words "... or birth control".

The reason given in the edit summary was in regards to the second paragraph:

another attempt on my part at compromise; not providing access to birth control is irrelevant to a pregnant woman ("you're pregnant -- well, golly, here are some condoms"))

I find this statement confusing. Sex is what leads to pregnancy. If a woman is having sex and using birth control improperly, or not using any at all, it's reasonable to suggest that education about birth control could be a part of preventing future unexpected pregnancies. I think the contrast between pro-life centers not providing BC or BC education, and pro-choice centers providing BC and BC education is worth noting. (Please hold the sarcasm next time.)

In regards to the first paragraph, isn't it worth pointing out that CPCs would not provide the contact info of doctors who provide abortion, that they would only provide the info of doctors who will see the pregnancy through childbirth? Photouploaded (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for coming over as sarcastic -- I was just trying to relay a point in an edit summary. Whether or not a CPC provides free birth control is irrelevant to the article -- obviously emergency contraception is another story.

That's fine about doctors who don't provide abortion -- I'll accept changing it as you had it. Just thought it was redundant.

But as I have indicated above, I'm just not going to settle for "provide contact information" (your edit to an earlier version, which said "refer"). I still argue for "refer," as above, but will settle for "direct to" instead. LotR (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: "These centers may be staffed with volunteer nurses, ultrasound technicians, and/or other medical personnel.[10] Medical services offered at CPCs are typically limited to pregnancy diagnosis and ultrasound examination to determine the viability of the pregnancy. CPC clinics that do not provide prenatal care will direct pregnant women to physicians in private practice who will provide obstetric care, but who do not provide abortion.[11] [12]" I also added some example sources. Of course, these centers do refer pregnant to ob/gyns if needed (all CPC's have referral books), and of course the docs on the CPC referral list don't do abortions. --Monnica Williams (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Customer Satisfaction

I see that once again my hard work has been deleted. Despite all the CPC bashing, most women who visit a CPC feel the service was helpful. This information should not be censored and I am restoring it, unless someone has a good reason as to why it should be otherwise.--Monnica Williams (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening Section

Opening section is horribly biased. This sentence is false: "Crisis pregnancy centers' methods can be contrasted with pregnancy options counseling, a non-directive form of counseling where abortion, parenting, and adoption are discussed as options." ALL CPC's offer information and counseling about ALL options, including abortion. Furthermore, a lot of additional text in the first section is redundant and should be culled as it is repeated later. Comments? --Monnica Williams (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Monnica, of course. "Pregnancy options counseling" is what Planned Parenthood calls their counseling,[11] which very rarely results in adoption referrals. In their 2004-2005 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood reported just 1,414 adoption referrals, nationwide, or one adoption referral for every 180 abortions that they performed.[12] 99.4% is the result of "non-directive" counseling?? In contrast, a pro-life CPC might typically see 3/4 of its clients choose life for their babies.

There's a similar problem in the "medical services" section of this article, where it says, "In contrast to other reproductive health centers, such as those operated by Planned Parenthood, CPCs generally do not provide the contact information of abortion providers or emergency contraception." Think about that sentence for a bit, and you'll realize just how POV-saturated and just plain bizarre it is. Planned Parenthood generally is the abortion provider. In most cases, Planned Parenthood "reproductive health center" is Orwellian newspeak for abortion clinic (they don't promote reproductive health, they support reproductive prevention).

CPC's don't refer expectant mothers to abortion providers, because they believe abortion is wrong. But abortion clinics don't refer people to abortion providers, either, because they are the abortion providers.

Or think about it this way: imagine a sentence in an article about Planned Parenthood or another abortion provider which says, "In contrast to other reproductive health centers, such as those affiliated with CareNet, Planned Parenthood generally does not provide the contact information of Christian crisis pregnancy centers or postabortion counseling services." Does anyone here think we should add that to the Planned Parenthood article? NCdave (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab at fixing this. NCdave (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't fix it. You added unsourced claims. A google search doesn't establish your point.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What unsourced claims are you talking about? What google search and what point? NCdave (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the bottom part of this edit. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the statement that Planned Parenthood calls their counseling services "Pregnancy Options Counseling?" Here's my version of the sentence in question:

The counseling services offered by Crisis pregnancy centers discourage abortion, in contrast to pregnancy options counseling, which is what abortion providers like Planned Parenthood generally call their counseling services.[13]

I used a site-specific Google search of the plannedparenthood.org web site, which finds numerous examples of PP calling their counseling services "pregnancy options counseling." I could just make a list of those examples, but the Google search is a lot more concise. Those references prove that Planned Parenthood calls their pre-abortion counseling "pregnancy options counseling." Would you prefer listing the PP web site references, instead of the Google search? That would have the advantage of "stability," since what Google turns up varies a bit from day to day.

The current version of the sentence has a couple of problems:

The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers actively discourage abortion, in contrast to pregnancy options counseling or counseling by pro-choice advocates like Planned Parenthood.

Problem #1: The word "or" implies that "Pregnancy Options Counseling" is different from the counseling provided by PP. But that is untrue. "Pregnancy Options Counseling" is what PP says they offer.

Problem #2: Planned Parenthood is not just a "pro-choice advocate," they are the biggest abortion provider in the USA. To call them merely "pro-choice advocates" is deceptive. They are properly called an "abortion provider."

In fact, they are not truly pro-choice, because they actively oppose informed-consent laws that require informing mothers of all their options before an abortion.

But more pertinent to this topic is their financial stake: PP sells over $100,000,000 of abortions per year. The primary purpose of CPCs is to cut into that business, but at least the CPCs have no financial stake in a young mother's decision. PP's "pregnancy options counseling" so effectively encourages abortion that they performed 180 abortions for every one adoption referral that they made, according to PP's own most recent figures.[14]

Here's a question: Do any organizations which are not affiliated with abortion providers offer "pregnancy options counseling?" Can you find any examples? I didn't find any, but I did only a quick search. If so, then we could say:

The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers discourage abortion, in contrast to pregnancy options counseling, which is what pro-choice organizations and abortion providers like Planned Parenthood generally call their counseling services.

If we can't find any such organizations, then we should leave out "pro-choice organizations and" from the sentence. Agreed?

We could also turn the last part of the sentence around, if you think that would be better; I have no strong opinion about it:

The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers discourage abortion, in contrast to the counseling services offered by pro-choice organizations and abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, which is usually called pregnancy options counseling.

Note that the numbers prove that PP's counseling encourages abortion. (180 abortions for every adoption referral!) But I'm sure someone would object if we said that in the article right out loud. So the above proposed sentences avoids wading into that argument. It simply says that the "pregnancy options counseling" offered by PP et al does not discourage abortion, a statement with which I hope nobody will disagree.

Also, I have another question. Someone added the word "actively" to that sentence. I wonder why? It seems superfluous. What is the difference between discouraging abortion and actively discouraging abortion? NCdave (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections, we really should go ahead and make this small change. For now I have no objection to leaving the "pro-choice organizations and" phrase in there, but we really need a cite to show that someone other than Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers call their counseling "pregnancy options counseling." If we can't find any examples, we should just drop those 3.5 words, to ensure that the sentence is true. NCdave (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article about the Spitzer Dillon spat 6 yrs ago in NY, says that Planned Parenthood in Nassau & Suffolk Counties call (or back then called) their counseling "full-option counseling." That seems to be a synonym for pregnancy options counseling. So how about this:

The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers discourage abortion, in contrast to the counseling services offered by pro-choice organizations and abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, which is usually called pregnancy options counseling or "full-option counseling."

Note the reference at the end. That's the Spitzer reference that Alice put in, but I took out when I removed the Spitzer stuff. Since Spitzer's investigation was long ago and came to nothing, there's no good reason to delve into it in this article. But the wording of this sentence would give us an excuse to put that reference back into the article, which should make Alice happy.

Any thoughts? NCdave (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

mischaracterization of Waxman "study"

The article charges, "A 2006 study conducted by the United States House of Representatives Special Investigations Division concluded that Crisis Pregnancy Centers provide false and misleading information..."

But there is no "Special Investigations Division" of the United States House of Representatives. The study was by the MINORITY STAFF of the Committee on Government Reform -- which is to say, it was by pro-abortion Democrat Henry Waxman's staff.[15] The mischaracterization of Waxman's report to make it sound like it was an impartial study by a "division" of the House of Representatives is grossly deceptive. What's more, Waxman's report was roundly criticized for numerous inaccuracies.[16] NCdave (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Waxman report was described in very great detail (as to its conclusions) both immediately before the "criticism" section, and again immediately after it. Waxman's investigation consisted of 23 phone calls. The enormous emphasis given that "study" in this article, like the deceptive description of where it came from, is indicative of the severe anti-CPC bias that pervades this article. I've merged the two descriptions, and moved them to the criticism section, and added a short reference to a pro-life rebuttal.

There was also a rather blatantly biased description of the Wirthlin poll on CPC effectiveness, which I've changed to NPOV phrasing. The previous description told only who hired the poll, and that they were pro-life, and didn't even mention who did the poll. If anyone thinks it matters who hired the poll, then we could put that in, too, but if so then for balance we need to go fix all the references to pro-choice organizations and abortion providers to say that's what they are (e.g., Guttmacher, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the USA). NCdave (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you have said, and I disagree with some. I've made some more middle of the road edits that hopefully is a good compromise. I agree that we were giving the one report a too much weight (and characterizing it incorrectly). However, I believe a brief mention of it's findings is relevant in the effectiveness section for balance. I also believe that the response to the Waxman report by the NRCL was overplayed a bit. I'd be glad to discuss my changes in more detail, but hopefully you can see why I made the changes and agree to my reasonable compromise :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ACK! Thanks for reverting me without discussing this matter further. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean, "sorry I reverted both you and Simesa (Simesa twice) without discussing it here on the Talk page," Andrew?

That Waxman report has nothing to do with the effectiveness of CPCs, and we really do not need two full summaries of it, one right beneath the other. NCdave (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - Andrew, note that my original edit, which I had discussed first here on the Talk page, said "see Talk" in the edit summary, so I don't understand how you missed the discussion here. What's more, in the edit summary for my very limited partial un-revert of your revert, I again pointed you to the discussion here on the Talk page about it, saying "Andrew, pls see the Talk page." That was all before you said anything at all about it on this Talk page. I tried hard to bring you into the discussion! So I really can't understand how, after all that, you could write, "thanks for reverting me without discussing this matter further." NCdave (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left you a message on your talk page. All I will say in public here to defend myself is that I was in the process of composing my replies and explanations while NCdave got trigger happy with the reverts. If he had just been offline for another half hours, he would never have made a claim that I was editing without discussion. I was in the process of discussing when NCdave reverted my edit. Typing and research doesn't happen instantaneously. This explains why I was so shocked and wrote "ACK" to find out that after I posted my reply, I had already been reverted. I later looked closer at the time stamps and realized that he reverted before my reply was posted. But still, we should all stand back and relax, take a breather, assume good faith and move on towards making this article better!-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked at your characterization of my edits. I have added explanation for my edits on the talk page. The only undiscussed revert of mine was removing an external link that at the time I was convinced was linkspam. However, I did explain that removal to the editor in question on another talk page, see Talk:Pregnancy_options_counseling#Proposed_changes. There is NO REASON to re-add controversial NEW content (in this case the adoption scholarship stuff) while it is under dispute on the talk page. See WP:BRD. It's ok to make a bold edit, but if it gets reverted, DON'T ADD THE NEW CONTENT BACK. Please see my comments regarding this link/source below. As for your edits, you deleted a lot of long standing, sourced content, and I restored a little bit, taking into consideration your concerns (or so I thought). I was not trying to reproduce a "full summary" of the Waxman report. I restored only a small portion of the quoted text which dealt specifically with effectiveness, which I think is a good start at balancing a 9 year old opinion poll. The poll by itself leaves an incomplete or unbalanced picture of the current debate regarding "effectiveness". -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, you reverted both him and me without any discussion here, twice. The customary place to discuss edits of an article is the Talk page for the article. Your ire is misplaced. I have no way to know what you have said on some other talk page about this article. When you partially reverted me, you did so with no discussion here at all, even though I'd explained my edits here on this Talk page, at length. You only added your first comment here about your reverts after I had un-reverted just a small portion of your revert. That is not the way to build WP:consensus.

What's more, your characterization of my original edits is not at all accurate. I did not delete that Waxman text, I just moved it up above the "effectiveness" header, and merged it with the essentially duplicate material from federally-funded CPCs section.

Moreover, the scholarship sentence was not "under dispute" on this Talk page. How can you criticize me for not knowing what you were saying somewhere else, where I was not a participant??

What's more, my partial unrevert of yours was very limited in scope: it removed only the duplicate Waxman material, and restored Simesa's short scholarship sentence, as discussed here (but not by you!) on the Talk page. I left all your other edits. There was no call for your "Ack!" remark and all-caps shouting at me.

What's more, the text that you reinserted in the "effectiveness" section did not have anything at all to do with the effectiveness of CPCs, it just attacked their honesty. The section is about the effectiveness of CPCs at helping moms find life-affirming alternatives to the tragedy of abortion, not about their "effectiveness at being accurate" or some such formulation intended to shoehorn Waxman's unrelated attack into a section where it does not belong. What's more, the Waxman report it cites is thoroughly discredited, and essentially the same material is already included in the article, just seven lines above where you inserted it again.

As for the need to balance the 3-line "effectiveness" section, did you notice that it immediately follows 15 lines of harsh criticism of CPCs? There is about 3 times as much criticism in that pair of sections as there is positive material. But you think it needs more criticism? Are you kidding?? What it needs is more positive material to balance the criticism. NCdave (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not generally support "criticism" section. It shoehorns all the "bad" or whatever you want to call it into one place. Where to really be NPOV, we should present all relevant notable POVs more holistically. If we have a section commenting on the effectiveness of CPCs, it should present all notable views on CPCs effectiveness. It is unbalanced to present only one view that CPCs are effective when there are notable views that contradict that claims. Because a report was already cited in the "criticism" section is not an excuse to ignore a POV. I would be for completely removing the criticism section, and spreading the content in a more balanced fashion throughout the entire article. I think the way to go perhaps, instead of removing the Waxman report from those other place and moving it all to the criticism section, it would have been better to remove the Waxman report from the criticism section, and keep it in the federal funding and effectiveness sections. But again, maybe the issue is just the title of the section. Perhaps "effectiveness" isn't best if your goal is to create a section to counterbalance the criticism section (and see there in lies the problem with criticism sections). -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone who says that CPCs are not effective. If you are, then I would encourage you to add a reference. The reason that abortion advocates hate CPCs is that CPSs are effective. The issue isn't their effectiveness, it is that not everyone likes what they are effective at doing. (Likewise, I've never heard anyone claim that Planned Parenthood is not effective at what they do... the criticism of PP is not that they are ineffective, but that what they do is wrong.) As for eliminating the criticism section and spreading its contents around the rest of the article, the problem is that it is so bloated and loaded with POV-laden anti-CPC polemic, that it would swamp the NPOV material. As for the discredited Waxman report, its inclusion at all is IMO dubious, and including it in two sections is absurd. Really, the article needs a lot more positive material to balance the criticism in the criticism section. A "praise" section to balance the "criticism" section would be a good addition. Maybe the "effectiveness" section could be a sub-section under "praise." What do you think? NCdave (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

An adoption scholarships foundation

About the External Link An adoption scholarships foundation that I posted and which is controversial - I don't deny that the link is somewhat spammy even though the organization is a charity. The point of encyclopedic interest is that such organizations and opportunities exist, and my feeling is that they should be addressed in this article in some way. Simesa (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the link to the Intro, because I saw a place where it looked like it best fit in. I am open to alternatives: different location, a different link, even a "Main" article. My only concern is that I do believe the existence of such opportunities is encyclopedically interesting. Simesa (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. NCdave (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that lifetimefoundation.org is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. And even given that, we can't say the actions of one center apply to CPCs in general. Are there any other CPCs that offer adoption scholarships? If so, then it would be a good idea to list "adoption grants" under the non-medical services (but not in the lead). Let's see how common this is to avoid giving undue weight to this one center (if it is a CPC). I did some preliminary research, and found [17], which isn't clear if the grant is for the mother or for the ones adopting. I couldn't find any other clearly CPC which states online they offer adoption grants or scholarships. Does anyone know of other sources we could use to establish that this practice is notable within the CPC movement?-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Simesa was saying that lifetimefoundation is a CPC. It is commonplace for volunteer-driven charities such as CPCs to work with other organizations and individuals to extend the services they provide. So CPCs commonly have close working relationships with adoption agencies, medical providers, churches, homes for unwed mothers, Christian counselors, etc.. For example, many (if not all) Catholic-supported CPCs have close working relationships with Project Rachel, a ministry which offers counseling to post-abortive women. Project Rachel is not a CPC, itself, but many CPCs offer Project Rachel's services to their clients. These scholarships would seem to be an interesting example of this sort of thing, and I think their mention enhances the article.

Regarding the "verifiability" tag that you added: Did you miss the "such as" is that sentence? There's no suggestion that scholarships for moms are commonplace, it is just an example of the other services that various CPCs offer to their clients, either directly or indirectly. As such, the link which Simesa provided is adaquate documentation. NCdave (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just signing on, having second thoughts about the phrase. A cite from a more reputable source would be desirable. When I get back home (I'm not now), I'll try to find a magazine article or somesuch. The concept is sound, but it does merit verification. Simesa (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally confused by your last comment, NCdave. Are you making it clear that lifetimefoundation.org isn't a CPC, but it can be used as a source that CPCs offer adoption grants? I fail to see the logic there. Forgive me if I have misunderstood. Bottom line, if we all agree that lifetimedoundation.org isn't a CPC, then it clearly cannot be used as a source for the services that CPCs may or may not offer. Therefore, we would need to have a source for your claim that CPCs closely work with adoption agencies, etc. That information would be good (and I know we already mention the maternity home aspect in the article). But again, we need sources to tie CPCs to these other organizations. Project Rachel might be a good start. But as of now, we have the unsourced claim that Some [CPCs] provide other support, such as scholarships for mothers who give their babies up for adoption. It'd be best to remove the unsourced claim for now, and work things out on talk till we get our sources in line and reach an appropriate wording. I will not be the one to remove the content though because I have no intention of furthering any edit war. So I kindly request that someone else remove this disputed (and unsourced) content for the time being. Thanks! -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I am not personally familiar with lifetimefoundation, but Alice moved the reference down into the "services" section, and I've edited it in a way that you might find acceptable. They don't call themselves a CPC, but their head honcho has written books & runs a web site on open adoption. I googled lifetimefoundation's mailing address, and found an adoption agency listing at that address. So even if they are affiliated with a CPC (and I don't know that they are), they are not a CPC, themselves. My edit changed it to call it an "outside service" that CPCs might send clients to. Let me know what you think of it. NCdave (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears your edit was undone or something because I cannot locate it. We'd need a source to say that CPCs refer their clients to lifetimefoundation. I understand totally on a logical level that these sort of organizations may very well work closely together. But my own personal speculation is not enough to meet WP:V. As it stands, the sentence in the article is false, at least from a standpoint of what the citation says in relation to our text. I will make some changes, but still we need a proper citation for this text to last. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, IronAngelAlice blanked it. NCdave (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice edits

Alice, you've just made four edits to the article, without discussion here on the Talk page.

Your 2nd edit, moving the scholarship info down into the services section, seems reasonable, and I'm keeping it; I'm also rewording it, to avoid Andrew's concern that prompted his addition of the "verification needed" tag, so I'll remove the tag, too. (Andrew, are you in agreement?)

Your other edits, though, were not good ones, Alice. You reverted my recent addition of information about post-abortive counseling services, and your edit comment absurdly characterized the official web page of a ministry of the Catholic Church as an unreliable source! You also inserted the POV-laden and factually incorrect "fundamentalist" appellation to disparage CPC staffers. So I'll revert those.

Alice, it is considered poor form to undo another editor's work without discussion. So, please, let's talk about whatever concerns you have.

We're supposed to be bold, but also careful. Please try to be careful to get your facts right. Your insertion of the "fundamentalist" label was not reflective of due care. The simple fact, which anyone who knows much about CPCs knows, is that, though the pro-life volunteers who staff CPCs are almost all Christian, they come from almost all Christian denominations: protestant and Catholic; Calvinist and Arminian; charismatic, fundamentalist, evangelical, litergical & nondenominational; and even from renewal-movement-minded folks in the liberal mainline denominations. Where did you get the idea that all CPC volunteers are "fundamentalist?" NCdave (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this POV sentence because the reference is to a Pro-Life website, not a reliable secondary source: "Most also provide counseling services for women suffering from post-abortion trauma, or refer clients to organizations which do so, such as Project Rachel.(ref)[18] Free, confidential counseling, offering healing and hope to those grieving after abortion.(/ref)"

I deleted "allegedly" in this sentence because it is well-poisening: "Crisis pregnancy centers have been criticized, especially by pro-choice supporters, for using allegedly deceptive tactics. The counseling services offered by Crisis pregnancy centers discourage abortion, in contrast to pregnancy options counseling, which is what abortion providers like Planned Parenthood generally call their counseling services."

In fact, most of that sentence is POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The portrayal of all Evangelical Christians as Fundamentalist Christians is not appropriate: there can be significant differences. Many CPCs now provide STD checking (as does Planned Parenthood), and that checking as well as sonograms do constitute medical services. Your cites should support your text: "psychological pressure" was a conclusion on your part, not explicitly stated nor well-supported by the 2002 Washington Post cite. I've tried to incorporate your changes where appropriate. Simesa (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, I am an Evangelical Christian, and I am not a Fundamentalist. But many CPC volunteers are neither Evangelical nor Fundamentalist. For instance, many are supported by the Roman Catholic church.

The claim that CPCs use deceptive tactics is not well-supported. It is an allegation, pushed by pro-abortion politicians and activists, and the abortion industry -- hence the word "allegedly." It is POV-pushing to insert poorly-supported attacks like that into the article, without making clear that they are merely allegations, not proven. Without the word "allegedly," the sentence implies that it is a fact that CPCs use deceptive tactics. That is untrue. NCdave (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! IronAngelAlice has inserted a boatload of POV-laden, anti-CPC nonsense into the article, and deleted some valuable material. For example, even after I pointed out here on the Talk page that many non-fundamentalist Protestant churches support CPCs (including my own, I might add), she reinserted that "fundamentalist" nonsense again. She also inserted a lot of other nonsense, like this gem:

"Most CPC's are in the United States, and receive the majority of their money from Bush Administration's, faith based initiatives."

Alice, if you know anything at all about CPCs, then you surely know that is nonsense (and if you don't know anything at all about CPCs then you should find something else to write about).

I'm going to revert this mess. Alice, you are very welcome to participate here, but please cease your POV-pushing. If you are going to insert controversial material, please discuss it here. Take a cue from Andrew: he is also skeptical of CPCs, and I disagree with many of his edits, but he is discussing his edits, and seeking consensus. Please do likewise. NCdave (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice, you have again inserted massive amounts of anti-CPC disinformation into the article, even including the false claims that were already specifically identified as false here on the Talk page, such as this your mischaracterization of CPC supporters as "fundamentalist," and this absurd claim:

Most CPC's... receive the majority of their money from Bush Administration's, faith based initiatives.

Have you read Waxman's thoroughly debunked report? You cited it as a reference to support that statement, but his report does not support it. Waxman's staffers called just a couple dozen CPCs that receive small amounts of support from the feds. Most CPCs receive none.

In addition to inserting false information, you've also deleted almost all well-sourced information that is inconsistent with your POV. Please read WP:NPOV.

Are you even reading any of this? I feel like I'm talking to a wall. You've reinserted this stuff without any participation in the discussion here. Why? Please read WP:consensus. NCdave (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely that it is false that the majority of the money for CPC comes from "Bush Administration's, faith based initiatives". The cited source doesn't even make this claim. All it says is "In total, over $30 million in federal funds went to more than 50 pregnancy resource centers between 2001 through 2005." Carenet's webpage claims "Care Net has grown to become the largest network of pregnancy centers in North America, with 1,100 centers serving over 350,000 women each year." and Heartbeat International's page claims "Nearly 1,100 affiliates in 47 states and in 42 other countries are in our network" So assuming affiliation is mutually exclusive (which it may not be), there could be as many as 2,200 CPCs, not to mentions ones associated with the Catholic Church, plus independent ones. ON the other hand we only 50 that received federal funding. Since when did under 2.5% become "a majority"? I've restored that section of the article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To quote:

Prior to the Bush Administration, only a few pregnancy resource centers received federal funding. Beginning in 2001, however, federal funding of pregnancy resource centers increased sharply. In total, over $30 million in federal funds went to more than 50 pregnancy resource centers between 2001 through 2005.

One major source of federal funds tapped by pregnancy resource centers is funding for abstinence-only education. Centers teach abstinence-until-marriage either on site or at other locations in the community, including public schools. At a 2005 conference, Care Net, the national umbrella organization, described the advantages of abstinence funding for pregnancy resource centers:

[D]efending and promoting a culture of life is not just about saving babies of those women that walk into the center that are pregnant and thinking about abortion .... You’re defending and promoting a culture of life through teaching them about their own sexuality, their own bodies, and in that, they begin to understand the creation process, and they begin to understand that an unborn child really is valuable. ...

Now obviously when you go into public schools you can’t start talking about Jesus dying on the cross, or you may not get invited back very quickly. But ... you’re opening the door to a lot more people that may not normally know of your center, you’re building credibility for your pregnancy center, you’re helping people begin to trust in your pregnancy center, so that if those girls that may have heard your story and didn’t quite take it to heart and end up coming to your pregnancy center, or they have friends or family members that come, that trust is already built, and then you’ve already earned the right to be heard. So people that come into your center that have already heard you, you get the chance to share the Gospel with them, which is the ultimate thing of what we’re doing.

At least 29 pregnancy resource centers received a total of over $24 million in Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) funds from 2001 through 2005. Other pregnancy resource centers have received a total of at least $6 million in abstinence funding provided to the states under section 510 of Title V.16 The actual total may be higher because centralized information on these grants is not available. For many pregnancy resource centers receiving federal abstinence funding, the grants represented a major increase in their annual budget, in some cases expanding their budgets by seven- fold.

etc etc etc

While it may not be true that the majority of CPC money does not come from the federal government, what the Waxman report suggests is that umbrella organizations such as Heartbeat International and Care Net distribute grants to CPC's, making the Federal government a major source of income for CPC's in general.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

More information on federal funding of CPC's:

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101723_pf.html
• http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/2/gr050204.html
• http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/23/cpc/index.html
• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1590444-3,00.html "In 2005, roughly 13% of Care Net affiliates got state or federal money; their average budget was $155,000." —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Alice has declined to self-un-revert (except for a couple of minor things), I'm going to undo Alice's recent POV-heavy edits (mostly the reverts that she made in violation of 3RR, including deleting 14 of 34 article references). The result will be fairly close to Andrew's 25 February version, but with some of Alice's subsequent edits and my subsequent edits merged in. I'm trying hard to avoid doing anything which would provoke ire from other editors. E.g., I'm not going to delete the discredited Waxman anti-CPC hit piece, though it really doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards.

Please, let's discuss changes here, and try to arrive at consensus, rather than edit wars, okay? NCdave (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Referring and directing

We need citations for the claims that CPCs are affiliated with or otherwise work with or refer clients to lifetimefoundation.org and Project Rachel. The latter citation shouldn't be that hard to get I don't imagine, and if I get a chance later today I will look myself. The former makes sense to me, but in order for it to go in the article, it must be independently verifiable by our readers. Also, I reworded the "post-abortion trauma" bit to avoid getting into the debate on whether such a syndrome actually exists (see Abortion and mental health). Hopefully my changes and my edit summaries make sense, and the article has improved with my edits. I just want to make sure that this time it's clear I am working on the talk page while actively editing the article ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The so-called debate as to whether it exists is entirely bogus. If the condition doesn't exist, then what, exactly, does the Project Rachel ministry do? The debate is really just political activism by abortion supporters who don't want to admit that killing babies is traumatic to their mothers.

Nevertheless, your edit of that bit seems okay to me.

BTW, I do appreciate you seeking consensus here on the Talk page, Andrew. I wish everyone did. NCdave (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A Google search for CPCs and "Project Rachel" finds many, many hits, such as this page, which is a second-party CPC list for the Erie, Pennsylvania area which includes a special category for "after abortion." In that category it lists:

Project Rachel National 1-800-593-2273 -- Most Crisis Pregnancy Centers provide post-abortion counseling. Project Rachel specializes in this area.

So there's some more documentation for the fact that most CPCs provide (or refer for) post-abortion counseling.

Also, I'm nearly certain that my local Catholic CPC, BirthChoice, refers clients to Project Rachel, but I'll need to call back Monday to verify that. Under "services" they list:

• Caring and Supportive Friends
• Free Pregnancy Test and Limited Ultrasound
• Pre-Abortion Counseling
• Post-Abortion Counseling and Healing
• Referrals to Accredited Adoption Agencies
• Referrals for Legal Advice, or Medical & Financial Help
• Maternity Clothing
• Baby Clothing and Items
• BIRTHCHOICE volunteers meet callers face to face for needed interviewing, service, and follow-up
• All service are private and Confidential

I think the "Post-Abortion Counseling and Healing" item is via referrals to Project Rachel, but I need to verify that. NCdave (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have personally seen the devastation that abortion causes to its maternal victims. The following is a personal anecdote, so it obviously doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. But it will serve to show why I have no patience with those who claim there's no such thing as post-abortion trauma. I've seen it for myself.

About a decade ago I did some volunteer work for a small local charity. We had the charity's phone number redirected to a distinctive ring number on my home phone for about a month, and during that month I got a phone call that I will never forget.

There was a hurricane threatening the NC coast at the time. (We get a lot of hurricanes here!) All over eastern North Carolina, grocery stores were mobbed by people buying bread and bottled water and flashlight batteries. That was what triggered the call.

The lady did not give her name. It was on caller ID, but out of respect for her privacy I didn't write it down or memorize it. She was crying and crying. She needed someone to talk to, and could not talk to anyone she knew. So she called a complete stranger, and she got me.

I didn't have any counseling training, but I did my best to lend her a sympathetic ear. I also gave her the phone numbers for Project Rachel and a Pregnancy Life Care Center, a local CPC which I knew does post-abortion counseling.

She had had her abortion a couple of years earlier, when another hurricane was threatening the North Carolina coast. She'd not told anyone she knew. After the abortion, she put it out of her mind, and just went on with her life.

That worked for a while. But when she walked into a grocery store a couple of years later, and saw the bare bread shelves and the lines of people at the checkout lanes, the walled-up memories burst loose, and she fell apart. (I've since read that that sort of thing is common.)

So she called me. She could not stop crying. She was overwhelmed with regret and guilt about what she had done. She'd have done anything to be able to undo it. She could not talk to anyone in her family because they didn't know her secret. She said she was in her upper 30s, and the child she'd aborted was probably the only one she would ever have. She was a Christian, and an active churchgoer, but she said she couldn't talk to her pastor or anyone at her church because she couldn't bear the thought of what they would think of her if they knew what she had done. She was obviously very repentant, so I reminded her that Christ paid the price for her sin, and God forgives the sins that we repent of. She answered that she knew what I said was true, but she could not forgive herself.

Nobody who heard the agony in that poor woman's voice could doubt the reality of post-abortion trauma. Even now I have a hard time telling the story without my voice catching. NCdave (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the sources you cite are not reliable or scientific evidence.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice, you seem to be under some misconceptions about what constitutes verifiability. NCdave (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please enlighten me.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that political polemic from a pro-abortion politician (Waxman) and from abortion providers like Planned Parenthood qualify as reliable sources of information about CPCs (it doesn't), and that self-published information from the CPCs themselves is not an acceptable source for information about the CPCs (it is). I gave you a link, please read it. If you are going to include material like the Waxman report (which violates the verifiability criteria) then at the very least for the sake of neutrality we must include balancing material from the other side -- which you keep deleting.

The fact is that CPCs are wonderful charities, which help many young mothers. The people who sacrifice their time and treasure to support them are among the kindest, gentlest people you could ever hope to meet. Please stop tarring them with hateful criticism and false accusations. NCdave (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reliable resources have nothing to do with being pro-choice or pro-life, and emotional appeals on your part are not compelling. Our sources "should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy." A Congressional Report is third party, and fact-checked. In this case, the Waxman report is reliable. The National Right to Life Committee is not fact-checked or third party.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice, you apparently don't understand the terminology. The Waxman Report is neither third-party nor fact-checked. It was a report by Waxman's staff, only, and it has been thoroughly debunked. You seem to have confused Waxman's staff's report with bipartisan material produced by departments like the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO is a reliable source, Waxman's staff is not.

OTOH, If you would read the WP:verifiability link you would learn that self-published information is an acceptable source of information for an article about the organizations, themselves. That means that the CPCs' own web sites are acceptable sources of information for an article about CPCs. By the same principle, Planned Parenthood's website is an acceptable source of information about them; in fact, 5 of the 15 references in the Planned Parenthood article are references to Planned Parenthood's own website. NCdave (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

VERIFIED: On Saturday I wrote, "Also, I'm nearly certain that my local Catholic CPC, BirthChoice, refers clients to Project Rachel."

Today I called BirthChoice and asked that question. They told me, "yes," they refer clients to Project Rachel for post-abortion counseling, and that here in Raleigh they actually share office space with Project Rachel. They also told me that most Catholic-supported CPCs refer to Project Rachel.

They also told me they have expanded. They are in a new office, and they have a new ultrasound machine, and three RNs on staff who are trained to use it, and three more RNs who are in training right now. They hope soon to be able to offer ultrasound exams 4 days per week. NCdave (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, my objection is to using the pro-life (or pro-choice for that matter) websites to make factual claims concerning what CPC's are, and how they operate. Frankly, mentioning "Project Rachel" is not necessary, and acts like an advertisement in this context. The article is talking about CPC's, any mention of Project Rachel is superfluous.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice, did you read what I wrote? Most Catholic-supported CPCs refer post-abortive clients to Project Rachel. Project Rachel's services are in integral part of the ministry. In fact, in the case of BirthChoice, here in Raleigh, they even share the same office.

Most (or perhaps all) CPCs these days either provide post-abortion counseling or else refer to someone who does. That wasn't always the case; this service was added because of the great demand for it. That's why some in the pro-life movement will tell you that every abortion has at least two victims: mother and child. NCdave (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR. We cannot use a phone call you placed as a reliable source because it doesn't meet our no original research/verifiability policies. Personal claims about the increase in services are not helpful for this article because they again do not meet our verifiability requisite.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice, in spite of the numerous inaccuracies you've introduced in the article, I hoped that there might be some common ground to be found in the External References section. Dividing them into pro-life and pro-choice seemed reasonable, so I tried to work with you on some sort of compromise wording there. Your response was an immediate revert, again without discussion on the Talk page.

This is ridiculous. I've reverted back to a less unbalanced version by Andrew, with a few of your edits merged in, and a few of my own, and Andrew's latest edit merged it. Please stop edit warring and work with the rest of us to try to find consensus. NCdave (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Project Rachel and Birthchoice share office space is easily documented. But, for now, the whole issue is moot, because IronAngelAlice has blanked the whole thing. Until she can be induced to cease doing that sort of thing, constructive editing of this article is going to be impossible. NCdave (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Differing visions of this page

Hopefully this will prevent an all-out revert war.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

At last, and Amen! Pls continue the discussion above, in the IronAngelAlice Edits section. NCdave (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made these arguments before, and I will make them one more time:

Beginning paragraphs

I have made these arguments before, and I will make them one more time. Here is the current beginning paragraphs:

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers, are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to persuade pregnant women to give birth rather than have abortions, with a focus on women facing unplanned or "crisis" pregnancies. CPCs may advise women regarding parenting and adoption. CPCs provide non-medical supportive services to pregnant and parenting women; about a quarter also provide some level of medical services. Some offer post-abortion counseling services, or refer clients to organizations which do so, such as Project Rachel.

Most CPCs are in the United States, and individual CPCs are usually affiliated with a larger pro-life Christian CPC organization, or a specific Christian church (especially Evangelical and Roman Catholic churches).. Some CPCs operate as parachurch organizations. Most are in the United States.

Crisis pregnancy centers have been criticized in recent years, especially by pro-choice supporters, for allegedly giving erroneous information (see below). The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers actively discourage abortion, in contrast to pregnancy options counseling or counseling by pro-choice advocates like Planned Parenthood.

Here are the issues with it:

• There is an advertisement for Project Rachel
• All Christians (including Mainline Protestants) are defacto pro-life per the wording; there are some liberal Evangelical Christians (like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) that do not support CPC's; therefore we need to clarify that those who support CPC's are fundamentalist evangelicals as pointed out on the Christian Fundamentalist and Evangelicalism pages.
• The government doesn't directly support CPC's, which is the implication of the second paragraph.
• The word "allegedly" is well-poisening, as there are neutral criticisms of CPC's coming from print and television media.

For these reasons, I am revising the first paragraph to:

'Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers, are non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to persuade pregnant women to give birth rather than have an abortion. Most CPCs are in the United States, and are usually affiliated with pro-life Fundamentalist (Evanglical) Christian CPC organizations, or a specific Roman Catholic or Fundamentalist (Evanglical) church. Though they generally do not provide medical care, CPC's are made to look like medical clinics, not religious organizations. Some CPCs operate as parachurch organizations, and may advise women regarding parenting and adoption.

The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers use psychological pressure to discourage women from aborting. About a quarter of CPCs conduct sonograms as a way to persuade women not to abort. In contrast, pregnancy options counseling offers neutral, medically accurate information about a wide variety of choices concerning pregnancy, including information about abortion. Pregnancy options counseling is provided by organizations like Planned Parenthood.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Allegedly" is not well-poisoning, it is simply telling the truth that the accusations are accusations, not proven facts. Your revert makes the statement misleading and POV-biased.
• The previous version obviously did not suggest that all Christians are pro-life (though the Bible certainly encourages them to be). I'm sorry that you don't understand the self-descriptive terminology that Christians use, such as "fundamentalist," "evangelical," etc. We do. So why don't you leave that up to us?
• You've again inserted the charge that, "Though they generally do not provide medical care, CPC's are made to look like medical clinics, not religious organizations."

This is not only blatant POV-pushing, it is also an incredibly flagrant 3RR violation. You made this revert just one minute after your scornful reply to my warning on your Talk page that you'd done three full reverts. My warning was to help you avoid inadvertently violating 3RR, but you went ahead and violated it anyhow, deliberately.

Please (un)revert yourself. NCdave (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the use of "fundamentalist" isn't supported by our sources. We should only use the terms that our sources use. Bazelon says "Catholic and evangelical". I also agree that our cited sources do not support the gross generalization that they are made to look like medical clinics. This is true of some, and we discuss that in the "Legal and legislative actions against CPC's" section already, but I don't think that is notable enough to be mentioned again in the lead (and then generalized to apply to all CPCs). Perhaps I am missing the section of our cited sources which make this claim, but I really don't think it's supported, and I would support removing the sentence. NCdave, you already filed your 3RR report elsewhere, and IAA hasn't edited the article in over 20 hours, so it doesn't seem productive to bring that up again here. As for "allegedly" I can see arguments on both sides for including and not including it (and we do have this). But because that sentence is no longer in the lead, I'm not sure we need to discuss that further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrewc, I think you are correct, and deleted that sentence. I believe the impetus for that sentence came from here:

And even though they may have a clinical and professional veneer, very few Crisis Pregnancy Centers actually have any trained medical professionals on board.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Paragraph- Prevalence

The major problem with the second paragraph is that it does not correctly categorize the kind of Christian presented (as pointed out above). Therefore, the paragraph should be revised to say:

As of September, 2006, there were over 2,200 pro-life pregnancy centers in the United States.While they are most prevalent in the United States, CPCs are also present internationally. Most crisis pregnancy centers are affiliated with one of three major pro-life, Fundamentalist Christian organizations that fund CPCs; these are Care Net, Heartbeat International, and Birthright International. Care Net is the largest network of CPCs in North America, with 1,100 centers advising over 350,000 women annually.Heartbeat International is associated with over 1,000 centers, and Birthright International has over 400 affiliates. The largest UK organisations are CareConfidential and LifeUK.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-medical services

The majority of CPCs do not offer medical services; this is true of three-quarters of CPCs in the United States.. Depending on its size, resources, and affiliation, non-medical services offered may include:

• Information favorable to the pro-life viewpoint about abortion procedures and their risks
• Education about fetal development, pregnancy, and childbirth
• Information on adoption
• Information about contraceptive failure rates and sexually transmitted diseases
• Information promoting sexual abstinence until marriage
• Religious literature, including Bibles
• Information about child care and child safety issues
• Maternity and baby clothing
• Information about career development
• Bible study and peer counseling for women who have recently terminated a pregnancy

CPCs may also provide the contact information of outside agencies that provide medical care, legal aid, or social services. A small number of CPCs are affiliated with maternity houses, or temporary homes for pregnant women and young mothers in crisis. Some may direct clients to an organization that provides scholarships for mothers who give their babies up for adoption.

This section is mostly an advertisement for CPC's and their umbrella organizations. The references need to be changed to reliable resources, which in this case are secondary sources, and the text needs to be replaced to match what is in those sources. In this case, we have the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. The paragraph should be changed to say:

The majority of CPCs do not offer medical services; this is true of three-quarters of CPCs in the United States. Depending on its size, a CPC will conduct sonograms. They will offer bible study sessions and "peer counseling" for women who have recently terminated a pregnancy

They will also disseminate pro-life information, adoption information, information promoting sexual abstinence until marriage, religious literature and Bibles, information about child care and child safety issues, maternity and baby clothing, and information about career development.

CPCs may also provide the contact information of outside agencies that provide medical care, legal aid, or social services. A small number of CPCs are affiliated with maternity houses, or temporary homes for pregnant women and young mothers. Some may direct clients to an organization that provides scholarships for mothers who give their babies up for adoption. In contrast to other reproductive health centers, such as those operated by Planned Parenthood, CPCs do not provide the contact information for abortion providers or emergency contraception. For this reason, phone books may list CPC's in a section labeled "Abortion Alternatives" (as opposed to "Abortion Services").

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change much in the last paragraph few sentences there. We should work on getting them sourced. Or I can delete them.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The material you got rid of was not an "advertisement," it was a list of services that CPCs offer. If this is supposed to be an article about CPCs, how can it not be appropriate to list the services they offer?

It is also strange for you to write '"the paragraph should be changed to say..." after you already changed it. That's just pretending to collaborate.

I was amazed that you wrote, "We should work on getting them sourced. Or I can delete them." You just finished deleting the references! "We should work on getting them sourced?" Who are you kidding??

Your change was largely another revert: among other things, you again deleted the valuable "what is a CPC" and lifetimefoundation.org references, and you again changed the caption from "services" to "CPC activities." Your revert was a particularly blatant violation of WP:3RR, because you did it just 14 minutes after I warned you on your Talk page that you'd done three full reverts on this article, and just 9 minutes after you replied scornfully to that warning. My warning was to help you avoid inadvertently violating 3RR, but you went ahead and violated it anyhow, deliberately.

Please (un)revert yourself, and restore the paragraph. NCdave (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave up waiting, and restored it myself. NCdave (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded to this below.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Medical Services

The paragraph as it currently stands claims that CPC's offer medical services. Offering a sonogram, however, is not a medical service. One doesn't need to have a medical degree (as a doctor or a nurse) to provide a sonogram. The paragraph also claims that some CPC's do STD tests, but there is no citation for that claim. More importantly, the paragraph does not claim that CPC's provide pre-natal care. There is no proof that they provide pre-natal care. Therefore, the paragraph should be simply added into the paragraph above.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice, it is plain that you have never darkened the door of a CPC. Why are you editing here? You are SO confused about them!

At least in most States, one must be trained and certified to give sonograms. As I mentioned earlier, Birthchoice here in Raleigh as a nice new ultrasound machine, and three RNs on staff who are certified to use it. Three more RNs are in training.

As for pre-natal care, it is really obvious that you know very little about CPCs. Making sure that young mothers and their babies get the care they need is at the very core of what CPCs are all about.[19] NCdave (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example why those close to a subject sometimes are not the best people to edit on that subject. Personal experience and anecdotes are never appropriate for wikipedia. They do not meet WP:V. I do not consider it a disservice if the authors of this encyclopedia entry have never been inside a CPC. All that matters on wikipedia is what can be verified through reliable sources (and personal experiences are never considered WP:RS). NCdave, your comments to IAA are inappropriate. It is not civil to say things like "it is really obvious that you know very little about CPCs". Really, how is negative criticism like that going to make IAA a better editor? Anyway, about the topic at hand "Medical Services", we need to establish who is right: is it true that "One doesn't need to have a medical degree to provide a sonogram"? Are "sonograms" considered "medical services" by independent, reliable sources? We need sources that state CPCs provide pre-natal care if we are going to mention that in the article. STD testing needs citation as well. IAA's concerns about this section all seems in line with policy (even if there has been too much edit warring in the main article).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Points taken, Andrew.

However, I don't think there'd be so much confusion here about what services CPCs offer if the editors had actually visited one or two of them.

Here are some quotes from the article that I just cited, above.

"...most Crisis Pregnancy Centers offer adoption referral services, placement into maternity homes, referrals to free pre-natal care and free ultrasounds, free counseling and free child care supplies after the child is born."

and:

"...according to Chris Slattery, Founder and President of Expectant Mother Care, the largest network of abortion alternative centers in New York State. With five full time locations in the New York City area, Slattery’s 17 year-old network aids over 4,200 hurting women a year. They are presently the only Crisis Pregnancy organization to offer on-site sonograms, providing some 50 to 60 of the diagnostic services each week free of charge. Three of their locations provide a full nine-month pre-natal care service with staff physicians available to deliver the babies once they come to term. Additionally, Slattery’s teams include certified nurses, ultrasound techs and phlebotomists, along with visiting social workers and nutritionists."

Does that help?

As for what constitutes "medical" procedures, I don't think that is hard. Just check the dictionary. According the American Heritage dictionary:

medical. adj. 1. Of or relating to the study or practice of medicine. 2. Requiring treatment by medicine.[20]

medicine. n. 1a. The science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind. b. The branch of this science encompassing treatment by drugs, diet, exercise, and other nonsurgical means. 2. The practice of medicine. 3....[21]

Sonograms are diagnostic procedures, ergo they are "medical" services. NCdave (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sonograms are diagnostic procedures for medical professionals. What some of our sources say is that in the case of CPCs, the sonograms aren't used for diagnosis, but for pressuring women not to abort. The key is if whether doctors are using the sonogram machines or not.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Psalm 139 Project

This paragraph is a blatant advertisement and should be deleted as it stands now:

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, is working to equip more CPCs with ultrasound machines, through what they call the Psalm 139 Project. "If wombs had windows, people would be much more reticent to abort babies because they would be forced to confront the evident humanity of the baby from very early gestation onward," says ERLC President Richard Land on Project 139 web site.

According to the Heidi Group, a Christian organization that advises crisis pregnancy centers, most women who visit CPCs and see their babies through the use of ultrasound technology decide against abortion.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Advertisement?" That's ridiculous. They aren't selling anything, so what do you suppose this is an advertisement for?

This section is about where many CPCs get their support, and why. You were the one who kept inserting the false claim that most CPC support comes from the Bush Administration's faith-based initiative. Why are you now suddenly against having the article say where CPC support comes from?

The fact is that most CPC support comes from the generous voluntary contributions of time and treasure, both individually and corporately through their churches, by kind people who want to help young mothers and their babies.

Alice, it is strange for you to say this section "should be deleted" after you've already deleted it. Your blanking of this section was in blatant violation of WP:3RR, coming just 19 minutes after I warned you on your Talk page that you had just done three full reverts on this article, and just 14 minutes after you replied scornfully to that warning.

Please restore it. NCdave (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Alice didn't restore it, I did. However, I also moved it. It is now a subsection under "Funding." It seems that buying ultrasound machines for CPCs is funding. Agreed? NCdave (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded to this in the funding section below.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Policies section

This point of this section is to represent a CPC as a medical organization that is subject to federal medical policies regarding employment. This is original research, basically. This is the current paragraph that I propose deleting:

The parent organizations Birthright International and Heartbeat International have non-discrimination policies. Crisis pregnancy centers are obligated under applicable state law to notify local police of any suspected cases of sexual assault or statutory rape.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this section being in the article, but how did you come to the conclusion that "the point of this section is to represent a CPC as a medical organization?" It does not say that, and what it does say is certainly well-documented. NCdave (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Disinformation

I will add this section back because it has reliable sources:

An United States House of Representatives minority report by Congressmen Henry Waxman concluded that CPC's provide "false and misleading information" about a link between abortion and breast cancer, the effects of abortion on fertility, and the mental health effects of abortion.

The summary of the the report says:

The individuals who contact federally funded pregnancy resource centers are often vulnerable teenagers, who are susceptible to being misled and need medically accurate information to help them make a fully informed decision. The vast majority of pregnancy resource centers contacted for this report, however, provided false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion. This may advance the mission of the pregnancy resource centers, which are typically pro-life organizations dedicated to preventing abortion, but it is an inappropriate public health practice.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Waxman report is not a reliable source. It is discredited political polemic released by an extremely pro-abortion politician, touting a "study" that consisted of less than two dozen phone calls made by his own staff. NCdave (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also hard to imagine a more blatant POV-biased heading than "disinformation." NCdave (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Henry Waxman report on disinformation," since the actual title is, ""False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource." How do you feel about the revision of this section title?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Evangelicals

Because not all Evangelicals are take conservative positions on abortion (e.g. members of the United Church of Christ), it is important to differentiate conservative Evangelicals from mainline Evangelicals. In scholarly literature, conservative Evangelicals are usually called Fundamentalist Evangelicals.

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200001/ai_n8879164
• http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8294%28199109%2930%3A3%3C259%3AMFAAOD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
• http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-4078%28198809%2941%3A3%3C601%3AEWCAPD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage (You may have to go through a library to get full access)

Popular discourse (non-scholarly):

• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/waldman.html
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/green.html

However, "conservative Christian" may also work for our purposes. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed "Fundamentalist Evangelical" to "Conservative Evangelical."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice, first let me say that I agree that "conservative" is much more nearly accurate than "fundamentalist," which is not accurate at all. But "conservative evangelical" is redundant.

You really do have some great confusion Christian terminology. That's not surprising, because most people don't know all that much about religions other than their own. For instance, I really don't know much at all about the different strains of Hinduism.

But, having said that, I assure you that you are very confused about Christians. First you said that all Evangelicals are Fundies, now you say that the UCC is an Evangelical denomination! I laughed out loud when I read that. If you are reading "scholarly" literature that says such things, you need to find yourself some new scholars to read, because the ones you've been reading so far are clueless.

As it happens, I used to be a UCC member, and that denomination is most certainly not either Fundamentalist or Evangelical. The smaller of the two predecessor denominations which "united" into the United Church of Christ 60 or 80 years ago was actually called the "Evangelical and Reformed Church," and once upon a time there was a healthy strain of evangelicalism in the predecessor Congregationalist denomination. (They were particularly successful with missionary work in Hawaii, of all places.) But that was a long time ago. Very, very few UCC members would call their denomination "evangelical" today.

The UCC is the single most liberal major Christian denomination in the United States, having inherited that dubious distinction when the Unitarians ceased calling themselves "Christian" at all. I understand that the UCC actually has a forlorn renewal movement, and I'm sure some CPC volunteers hail from the UCC. Most of those folks consider themselves personally to be evangelicals, but even they would not call their denomination "evangelical." Rather, one of the renewal organizations reports that:

"some 26% of the membership of the United Church of Christ hold evangelical convictions and beliefs on core issues congruent with those [the renewal organization]"

That means ~3/4 of UCC members do not hold evangelical convictions and beliefs. I can just imagine the laughter if you called them fundies.

Now this has been a fun little digression, and I hope it has been educational for you. But we're supposed to be talking about the article, and your mischaracterization of the Christian volunteers and supporters of CPCs is just one of many, many attacks on CPCs that you've inserted into this article, while deleting balancing information. Since you've again filled this article with anti-CPC nonsense, in defiance of WP:NPOV and WP:3RR, I've tagged the article with a warning. NCdave (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the United Church of Christ website, they consider themselves to be evangelical, though not conservative or fundamentalist. Take a look at the wiki page. Also, as I've stated in the past, I'm an Episcopalian. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the UCC statements of doctrine and beliefs:

The UCC uses four words to describe itself: "Christian, Reformed, Congregational and Evangelical." The church's diversity and adherence to covenantal polity (rather than government by regional elders or bishops) give individual congregations a great deal of freedom in the areas of worship, congregational life, and doctrine.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong. Forgive me.

Also, your understanding of UCC governance is correct.

But if you consider the UCC to be an evangelical denomination, and evangelicals to be a subset of fundamentalists, do you then consider the UCC a fundamentalist denomination?

I can't find that quoted phrase ("Christian, Reformed, Congregational and Evangelical") on the UCC web site. On the UCC web site forums, the word "evangelical" is mainly used either in historical contexts (e.g., the name of one of the 2 denominations that merged to form the UCC), or else negatively.[22][23]

Sample quotes:

• "I do not agree with the more conservative/evangelical approach of taking the Bible literally"
• "...both sides of the progressive-evangelical spectrum..."
• "...the emergent church (which attempts to transcend the progressive-evangelical divide)..."
• "...Reclaiming the word evangelical..."

When used outside of historical contexts, the word "evangelical," as used on the UCC's web site, means "those other guys." NCdave (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I find the Great Awakening period in American history terribly interesting. The labels "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" had completely different connotations at that time, and still do among academics. Here is how the categorization works as I understand it (though I'm no expert):

The label "Evangelical" can be applied to almost any Christian (including Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) denomination. "Evangelical" simply means "the Christian effort to teach their/our faith to others." Almost every Christian tradition includes evangelism. Consequently, there are Catholics and liberal Protestants who call themselves "Evangelicals" in the literal sense. Take, for instance, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. They are are liberal on the political spectrum, but they call themselves evangelical.

In very recent history, however, the popular news media has used the term "evangelical" to specify conservative Christians whose doctrine comes from the fundamentalist tradition which became part of American culture and ethos in the mid-to-late 1800's (the Great Awakening). At the time, the word "fundamentalist" had a good connotation, and continues to have a neutral connotation among today's scholars and academics as a descriptor of doctrine coming from this tradition.

So, while any Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc) can be called evangelical, only a subset of Protestants (coming from the fundamentalist/Great Awakening period) tend to be called "Evangelical" in certain contexts.

If you want to discuss this further on my talk page, I would be glad to do so.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

More references

• Abortion Debate Shifts to Pregnancy Counseling Centers by the Associated Press
• Crisis pregnancy centers: Spreading the love to poor blacks on Salon.com
• Democrats seek oversight of crisis pregnancy centers by the Associated Press

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical Services in New York

Per the reference cited, I added the following:

Some CPC's in New York State offer medical services such as STD testing and pregnancy tests. This resulted in an investigation by then State Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer.

The article already said that some CPCs offer pregnancy tests and STD tests (twice!), so it seems redundant to also say that some New York CPCs do so. (I think all CPCs offer at least OTC pregnancy tests, anyhow.)

So I didn't add back the NY-specific section, after reverting the 3RR violations. Instead, I tweaked the wording in the Medical Services section, and got rid of one of the two statements that CPCs offer pregnancy & STD tests. But the Washington Post article is a reasonable source, so I've added that link to the article where it says that some CPCs offer pregnancy & STD tests.

Spitzer's investigation came to nothing, so I don't think there's any point in mentioning it, other than as an excuse to cite yet another CPC critic. NCdave (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If Spitzer's investigation came to nothing, we should probably note that using reliable, secondary resources. That is certainly newsworthy. The reason that have a NY-specific paragraph (it is no longer a section) is because the article specifies New York - not other regions.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that nothing has come of the 3R report. We don't know if it was a violation yet.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)