Talk:Crisis pregnancy center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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:

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECrisis_pregnancy_center_4b81.html"