Talk:Crisis pregnancy center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Contents 1 Medical Services in New York 2 Funding 3 This morning's revert to an earlier version 4 Request for participation 5 Pro-Life Groups Hit by GOP Lawmaker's Alleged Fraud 6 Opening section 7 Bias

[edit] 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.^[1] This resulted in an investigation by then State Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer.^[2]

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)

[edit] Funding

I've just made a few changes to the Funding section. I think these should be non-controversial.

I added a sentence to the donations section, saying that most support comes from donations.

I moved the Psalm 139 Project section into the funding section. Since donating ultrasound machines is really a form of funding, I think this section should just be a subsection in the Funding section.

I added a brief (2-sentence) subsection for the similar Focus On the Family effort to equip CPCs with ultrasound machines.

I listed all eight of the States that support CPCs, rather than just half of them. (It seemed odd to me that the article said eight States subsidize CPCs, and then listed just four.)

I moved the "choose life" license plants info out of the state funding subsection and into the donations subsection. When someone buys a license plate supporting a cause, the extra money they spend is split between the State and the cause. These special plates are revenue sources for the States, so it is backwards to call them state-funded support for CPCs and adoption agencies. It is just the opposite: the States are getting funds, not giving funds, though "choose life" license plate programs. NCdave (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, I like what you've done with the section - with one exception. I feel this sentence: "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" is an advertisement. It isn't coming from a secondary source, and I'd like to get the opinion of other editors on this.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement? What is it that you imagine it is advertising? Babies? Wombs? Windows? NCdave (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This morning's revert to an earlier version

This is going to be tough, NCdave, since we both have very different visions of what this page should be. We were able to come to a consensus on a few things (eg.Conservative Christians), but I think we are going to need the input of other editors to avoid constant reverts.

Just to be clear as to why I believe we should have the current version (not the earlier one): there was some consensus on the later version:

• [1],
• [2].

Also, I'd like others to weigh in on this sentence: "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". I think this is an advertisement, more or less. It definitely isn't coming from a secondary source.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, I just saw your lengthy post on the 3R board and responded there as well.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice has just done another mass revert.

This article has never had consensus, but we had a version that we were collaborating on, with editors both admiring and skeptical of CPCs. That's the version you unilaterally butchered, blanking over a dozen good references, and inserting numerous outrageous POV-slanted editorial remarks, over and over, in blithe disdain for WP:NPOV, WP:V, and even WP:3RR. The "some consensus" you allege for some of your changes is entirely imaginary. You've neither sought nor gotten consensus for any of the changes you've made. Not even one.

If you ever decide that you are ready to contribute constructively, the collaborative version, or something closely based on it, like this one is where we must start. NCdave (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's be fair, NCdave. You have also did a mass revert today. I'm sorry if you feel that I am an interloper to this article; however, I did lay out (above) all the reasons for my edits.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I undid your 3RR violations, Alice; your response was to defiantly re-revert. You've ruined this article. NCdave (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It takes two users to perpetrate an edit war. If the back and forth continues, this article could become locked, or worse, both of you blocked.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Andrew, that's why I'm requesting more participation in the article.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for participation

I don't know if this is properly put together, but here goes...--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A user has requested comment on society (including sport, law or sex) for this section. This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCsoc list}}. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

[edit] Pro-Life Groups Hit by GOP Lawmaker's Alleged Fraud

I'm not quite sure how to fit this into the article, but it looked interesting: Pro-Life Groups Hit by GOP Lawmaker's Alleged Fraud.

Quote: "Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., allegedly defrauded dozens of pro-life organizations for hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund his first congressional bid, according to an analysis of the recent indictment against him, a state insurance claim and an interview with an insurance lawyer involved in the case....Organizations such as Arizona Right-to-Life, the Hope Crisis Pregnancy Center and the Wickenburg Pregnancy Resource Center paid insurance premiums to Renzi's insurance firm, Renzi & Company, but received notices their insurance coverage was going to be cancelled for nonpayment, according to a 2003 complaint filed with the State of Arizona."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening section

I am new at this article. I think this is my first time here. I read the opening of the article, and, as is mentioned in the template at the top, found it is very POV. Take, for example, the statement, "In contrast, pregnancy options counseling offers neutral, medically accurate information about a wide variety of choices concerning pregnancy, including information about abortion." This statement suggests that crisis pregnancy centers do not offer medically accurate information. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there consensus that this statement can at least be removed? "In contrast, pregnancy options counseling offers neutral, medically accurate information about a wide variety of choices concerning pregnancy, including information about abortion.[6] Pregnancy options counseling is provided by organizations like Planned Parenthood.[7]" This article is about CPCs, not about abortion facilities. Also, those sentences are very POV. They suggest that CPCs are bad, and PP is good. I will remove those sentences if nobody replies soon. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is valid (with some modifications). I think linking to the pregnancy options counseling article is a good idea and helps to balance POV. However, I wouldn't mind removing the second sentence about Planned Parenthood. The neutrality of PP's counseling has been disputed. I think removing "neutral, medically accurate" with "non-directive" could help improve the first sentence. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would improve it. But I think it could also be argued that pregnancy options counseling is not always non-directive. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly correct, JBFrenchhorn, at least if we're talking about the United States.

In the USA, "pregnancy options" counseling is what abortion providers like Planned Parenthood usually call their counseling. However, as Andrew has pointed out elsewhere, the situation is very different in some other countries. In Australia, government certified non-directive pregnancy counseling may not legally be done by abortion providers.

Unfortunately, abortion providers like Planned Parenthood sometimes pressure pregnant women to get abortions. In this youtube video you can hear a Planned Parenthood counselor trying to talk a young teen into an abortion.

In the United States, there are 8 to 10 elective abortions for every adoption. But Planned Parenthood's counseling services so effectively encourage abortion that, on average, they performed 180 abortions in the United States for every adoption referral that they did, the last year that they released such figures.[3] In other words, women who received Planned Parenthood's counseling were only about 1/20th as likely to choose adoption rather than abortion.

Now, you can't infer from those numbers that PP's counseling causes women to be 20x less likely to choose adoption, since many (perhaps most) women who go to PP are predisposed to abortion. But PP also gets many women who come for other services, such as pregnancy tests and birth control products, so it is not plausible that 95% of their clients are already decided on abortion, as would be required to explain the 20x lower likelihood of choosing adoption. Part of that disparity (9-to-1 vs. 180-to-1) is clearly due to the persuasive counseling that PP provides. (Abortions bring in more than $100 million per year in revenue to Planned Parenthood in the United States.)

Here's an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that makes the point that "pregnancy options" counseling, in practice, often encourages abortion:

When clients come in with unwanted pregnancies, they hear about all options, including keeping the baby and giving it up for adoption. But critics say there is a not-so-subtle push in many cases toward abortion.

"You have a choice," a brochure available in the Austin clinic advises pregnant teenagers.

The bright red flyer urges them to consider how raising a child would hurt their social lives and crimp their freedom. "Do what's right for you," it urges.

The cartoon on the cover shows a howling infant.

Note that the Austin Planned Parenthood (which that Chronicle article discusses) does call their counseling (which not-so-subtly encourages abortion) "pregnancy options" counseling.[4]

Also, this Wikipedia article is misleading where it contrasts Pregnancy Options Counseling to CPC's counseling, because it implies that CPC do not offer "medically accurate information about a wide variety of choices concerning pregnancy, including information about abortion." But that is exactly what CPCs offer.

Also, this sentence, "the counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers use psychological pressure to discourage women from aborting," is neither neutral nor accurate. It is not "using psychological pressure" to tell the truth (or what the counselors believe to be the truth) about abortion and its consequences. NCdave (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to JBFrenchhorn, I disagree. Pregnancy option counseling, by definition is non-directive. If someone is giving directive counseling, it no longer is pregnancy option counseling (or that counselor could be in violation of the law), as defined by Australian law, the Council on Accreditation, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (42 Sec. 59.5), among others. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

The section on Federal funding states appears as follows:

As of July, 2006, 50 CPCs had received federal funding.[1] Between 2001 and 2006, over $60 million of federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers.[16] CPCs that receive federal funding are required by law to refrain from discriminating "based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability."[17]

I am going to remove that last sentence. It is biased, as it suggests that CPCs that don't receive Federal funding do discriminate based on those characteristics. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)