Talk:Crisis pregnancy center

Worklist

This is my list of stuff to do in the article. Partly for my own reference, but also in case other people want to tackle them, of course.

• try to get demographics of CPC clients: numbers, ages, etc. (need neutral sources for this, or very careful use of promotional sources) Numbers on how many people find CPCs when looking for abortion clinics would be awesome but might not exist. (we do however have two different stats on how many women in Ireland encounter a CPC when looking for non-directive crisis pregnancy counseling)
• include in "activities" a little information on the "delaying" tactic of CPCs (use existing sources, which I'm sure talk about it)
• consider integrating the court cases section to the advertisement section of the article, since they're all about that. Anyhow, the sections in the legal status section are somewhat arbitrary - as we mention in the local ordinances section, there have been court cases about that too, and I'm sure we could rustle up court cases about funding - this info about mandatory counseling isn't a law but would still seem to belong.
  • court cases about funding?
• Boes v. Deschu, another court case. Like the others, state-level with no evident fallout, so it may be worth trimming all of them a bit. Though see immediately above re: desirability of section.
• bring things up to date (numbers, funding)
• integrate Ireland section (CPCs vs. legit pregnancy counseling) into other sections of article
• add to "activities" a subsection on adoption ([1], find more sources)

Here's a great article on that very thing! Shotgun Adoption

• do more with the sources we're aware of but haven't used yet, eg. in the external links, or some that I have bookmarked; there are probably also some that we already cite but could get more from.
• on CPCs' role in the anti-abortion movement (also from sources we have, eg. grassroots, fight)
• web advertising: [2]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) (not putting a date so this won't be archived)

• two articles regarding google removing CPC false advertising [[3]] [[4]]

Lede NPOV issue

There's a pretty egregious POV issue in the lede of this article that Binksternet and Avatar317 have introduced while acting in good-faith with mostly reliable sourcing (we can ignore my sourcing concerns for this discussion; it's not relevant to the POV issue and is a reasonable judgement call either way per WP:BI). Looking at our articles on the Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements, it's pretty clear the established deference is towards exclusion of non-neutral terms from the lede sentence of articles on abortion. Concerns about the vitriolic language ("anti-women", "baby-killers", etc.) and more subtle POV'd lingo ("anti-choice", "pro-abortion") have seen these exclusions. Per an ongoing discussion (follow the link above) and Avatar's sourcing (thank you!), "fake abortion clinic" is clearly a term for CPCs among their opponents. However, including obviously POV charged language into the lede sentence on a delicate article is inappropriate. However, it is also obvious that both editors I've mentioned have been working on good-faith, if somewhat out of step with precedent. I hope to see their input and encourage discussion from anyone else who sees this! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The term isn't strictly partisan as you portray it. It's also used by scholarly sources. Here's a scholarly journal that uses it. Here's another from the same author four years earlier. And another journal with "Fake Abortion Clinics" as a sub-heading. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Should have asked to be pinged; my bad, please ping me in the future if you want to respond directly to me specifically. Academic sources are swell, but even they use the term in scare quotes for the first few mentions. We could probably find a few scholarly articles that use the terms I mentioned above (not the nastier ones) but that still does not mean that placing them in the lede sentence is any less charged and POV'd. Also, for those who had the same trouble with checking out the first source Binksternet—I am so sorry I almost abbreviated your name in a dreadful way, lmk if there's a way you prefer—the source comes from Women & Health rather than "Women Health" as the .gov website claims. Thanks for the quick reply. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You can shorten my username to Bink if you prefer.

The understanding on Wikipedia generally is that the person initiating a talk page discussion will check in to see the responses, if any. Pinging that person isn't required; some folks would consider it pushy or just too much noise. I was responding to the topic, not to you personally.

The scholarly paper "Beyond Bray" has on page 167 a discussion of crisis pregnancy centers under the heading "Fake Abortion Clinics". The first instance of the term crisis pregnancy centers is in quotes while "fake clinics" is never in quotes, flipping the situation you described:

In the 1970s, a Missouri-based anti-abortion organization called the Pearson Foundation issued a ninety-three page manual for setting up "crisis pregnancy centers." National groups such as the Christian Action Council and the National Institute of Family Life, began cooperating with individual operators to set up several thousand anti-abortion centers disguised as women's health clinics.These non-profit organizations call themselves "abortion clinics" or "abortion alternatives" but have no medical staff and do not offer abortions. The staff members use deception and religious threats to convince women not to terminate their pregnancies. Estimates of the number of fake clinics presently in operation in the United States range from 1500 to over 3000.

The author, Rebecca Eisenberg, a Harvard Law School doctoral candidate at the time, continues to call these places "fake clinics" in the remainder of the piece. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Bink, fair judgement call on the ping but just a personal preference! Again, we aren't establishing the term as being viable (a matter for the redirect convo linked above) but the inclusion of obvious POV terms in ledes. In each case, we're looking at ideological persuasions resulting in preferred nomenclature used by only one side of a debate (some academic sources might or might not accept as a generic term). Per our last discussion, it's apparent you prefer precedence in other articles and I have presented that. Thanks for clarifying preferred shortening on name; I'll remember it should we get the chance to chat more! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, a QUALIFIED statement like we currently have in the lead: ..."sometimes called a pregnancy resource center (PRC), and a fake abortion clinic by supporters of abortion rights..." is NPOV. We are explicitly stating who (more often) uses that term.

WP:OTHERNAMES states: "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Apologies for belated response and ping (unsure if you're still watching this). This policy suggest significant alternative names, but we exclude significant alternative names of a derisive nature (again, see other abortion-related articles; see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for an example of a potentially derisive name in use). The succeeding sentence of that policy also suggests a terminology section is necessary should we proceed with this third significant name in the lede. I agree on in-text attribution but am very disappointed it took going to the talk page to get that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Except this name isn't derogatory; it is accurate: at least for a very high percentage of these clinics as evidenced by the fact that there are many deceptive advertising laws created against them because of their intentional deception. Many (maybe not ALL, but a very high percent) INTENTIONALLY try to deceive women into believing that they are an abortion clinic, so that women will visit them rather than an abortion clinic: so this name isn't derogatory, for the great majority of these centers (maybe all) it is descriptive. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the first sentence list the alternate name "fake abortion clinic"? Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes, because "fake abortion clinic" is a term that is used by many sources to refer to these places. The term was used in scholarly journals starting in the 1990s. In 1990, J.A. Mertus published the scholarly paper "Fake abortion clinics: the threat to reproductive self-determination". In 1994, Rebecca Eisenberg published the paper "Beyond Bray " with a subsection titled "Fake Abortion Clinics", putting "crisis pregnancy center" in quotes but giving fake abortion clinic and fake clinic as the standard term. Modern media pieces have used this term, for instance The Guardian in the UK, the Idaho Statesman newspaper, Newsweek magazine and the Insider.com website. It's a negative term but it is seen widely enough to be listed. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• No. Why the hell does it need to be in the first sentence?

Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it's an alternative term that is used in enough sources to qualify as significant. WP:OTHERNAMES says the significant alternative names "should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. (I came here from the RfC listing.) There is sourcing for it, and this is a situation where NPOV indicates that it should be used. I looked at the lead section, and it strikes me as having some pretty serious POV problems, in that it tends to imply that most of these centers are legitimate medical centers that just happen to have a particular point of view. They aren't. They are set up to mislead. A properly NPOV and encyclopedic article here will present that fact dispassionately, not paper it over. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Following up, I'm OK with it being in a sentence other than the first one, so long as it's in the first paragraph of the lead. It should not, however, be treated as something that critics call it, because that's not accurate. It's what neutral observers call it. (Just as we wouldn't say that critics call faith healing pseudoscientific.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • And with this series of new edits: [5], I'm now satisfied with the overall NPOV of the lead section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I was satisfied as of those edits, but with recent reverts by one editor, I'm no longer confident that it was a stable version. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per Bink's sourcing and Trypto's NPOV analysis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per Bink and Tryptofish's reasoning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• No, not in the first line. It is sourced so we should mention that it they are sometimes called this, but I think a good approach is that the subject themselves wouldn't use this term. So, I suggest the 2nd sentence could be something like "They are also referred to as "fake abortion clinics" by critics" or similar referenced statement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I could live with that approach, though I think it should be in the lead section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

    • I agree that it should be in lead paragraph but not necessarily the first sentence. I feel it is wp:notable, but I don't feel it is important enough for the very first sentence. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 19:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The guideline WP:OTHERNAMES allows for any position within the first paragraph. But "critics" is not entirely true; topic scholars have used the term neutrally, positioning the term "crisis pregnancy centers" as biased in the same fashion as "pro-life", which we do not use as a neutral term.

Also, there is no source saying that the term "fake abortion clinics" is used by critics. That is a conclusion we might make as we attempt to summarize the sources. But some of the sources using that term are not simply critics—topic scholars such as Rebecca Eisenberg have used the term. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So how about attributing the term to critics and to topic scholars? The "no" objections being raised here seem primarily concerned with wiki-voice being used.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No, again. Hedging would be acceptable, but a better approach is something like "They are also referred to as "fake abortion clinics" by critics" or similar referenced statement. ZimAlakaZam (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Striking the above comment as it is from a user (now blocked) trying to impersonate me (almost certainly connected to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AnubisIbizu. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Except that it's not just critics. It's also the media and topic scholars. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• No (invited by the bot) Unthinkable to do it in the voice of Wikipedia. Per the previous post, something attributed and with context like "They are also referred to as "fake abortion clinics" by critics" might be useful in the body of the article. This isn't info about the centers, it's info about what critics say about them. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
• No For the reasons stated in my edit. It is not a particularly common name for crisis pregnancy centers, not even among their opponents. From doing a little Googling I found that "pro-life pregnancy center" was far more common and that "anti-abortion pregnancy center" was just about as common.Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Tryptofish's comments above manage to be wrong on two counts. The lead sentences definitely do not imply that that these are normal medical centers. Saying that a CPR " is a type of nonprofit organization established by anti-abortion groups to persuade pregnant women against having an abortion" clearly establishes it as primarily a social and not primarily as a medical organization. As for saying that "fake abortion clinic" is what "neutral observers" call a CPR, its far less than common usage belies the fact. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I stand by what I said. We can certainly agree to disagree on the current language of the lead section as a whole; these things are subjective. However, your argument about common usage should be tempered by what it says at WP:HITS. (It's written mainly in terms of notability, but it's also useful in the context of what we are discussing here.) The fact that a term gets more or fewer search engine hits has little bearing on its neutrality for purposes of NPOV. I'm not arguing that "fake" is the most common descriptor. (If it were, I'd argue for renaming this page.) I'm arguing that neutral observers consistently treat these centers as being fake. It's not just pro-choice critics who characterize them that way. Our NPOV policy requires that we characterize the page subject according to the preponderance of reliable sources, not according to splitting the difference between those sources and what the page subject would prefer. A neutral and encyclopedic article about these centers will describe them as fake versions of reproductive medicine clinics, intentionally designed to be deceptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You would be more accurate in saying "I consistently treat these centers as being fake". Where does the notion that "neutral observers consistently" do so come from, other than your wish? They certainly don't seem to use the term all that often; and for "fake abortion clinic" to be used as an alternate name in the first line of the article it really needs to be used either frequently or else formally. It passes neither test. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be accusing me of being a POV pusher. Let's see how the RfC goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Lots of articles in websites, newspapers, magazines and journals refer to CPCs as fake clinics or fake abortion clinics or both. Here are more examples. These examples are listed only to prove the widespread and frequent usage of the term. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Google Directs Users to Anti-Abortion ‘Fake Clinics’" by Center for Countering Digital Hate
• "Google searches for abortion clinics lead to hundreds of results for ‘fake clinics’ with friendly names in U.S. trigger states" by Fortune (magazine)

• Same story in The Guardian UK.[6]

• "How to Identify and Avoid Crisis Pregnancy Centers" by Healthline Media
• "Pregnant and Scared? How Fake Clinics Prey on Women" by National Women's Health Network
• "What Are Crisis Pregnancy Centers?" by Planned Parenthood
• "Hana’s Story: Tricked and Traumatized by a Fake Abortion Clinic" by Ms. (magazine)
• "Feminists Fight Fake Abortion Clinics: “No One Should Be Lied To”" by Ms. (magazine)
• "Four ways fake clinics harm women and undermine abortion access" by The Hill (newspaper)
• "Anti-Abortion Centers to Grow, Wield More Influence Post-Roe" by U.S. News & World Report
• "How To Spot A Fake Abortion Clinic" by Bust (magazine)
• "The Supreme Court Sided With Fake Clinics in California.\" by Rewire News Group
• "How Fake Clinics Use Google — and More — to Mislead Women" by Maine Family Planning
• "Meet The Millennials Fighting To Expose Fake Abortion Clinics" by Refinery29
• "What are crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and why should I avoid them?" by HeyJane.co
• "What are Crisis Pregnancy Centers?" by AbortionClinics.com
• "Fake Clinic Database" by reproaction.com
• "How Crisis Pregnancy Centers Can Overcome the 'Fake Clinic' Myth" by National Institute of Family and Life Advocates
• "The Truth About Crisis Pregnancy Centers" by NARAL Pro-Choice America
• "Are Pregnancy Centers 'Fake' Clinics?" by Care Net
• "Lawmakers urge Google to fix abortion searches suggesting ‘fake clinics’" by The Washington Post. "Crisis pregnancy centers" is presented in quotes as biased, but "fake abortion clinics" is given without quotes as the standard term.
• "Beyond Bray " by Rebecca Eisenberg. "Crisis pregnancy centers" is presented in quotes as biased, but "fake abortion clinics" is given without quotes as the standard term.
• "The Biden-Harris administration needs to end fake abortion clinics" by Stat (website)
• "Google will only show verified abortion providers by default when users search for clinics" by CNBC
• "Google will label which health clinics provide abortions" by Los Angeles Times
• "Avoiding Crisis Pregnancy Centers" by Austin Women's Health Center
• "The Fake Abortion Clinics of America" by Vice Media
• "Fake Abortion Clinics Outnumber Real Ones: Study" by The Crime Report, published by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
• "Lawmakers ask Google to fix abortion searches that mislead users to 'anti-abortion fake clinics'" by USA Today
• In 1990, punk singer Kathleen Hanna spray-painted the words "Fake abortion clinic, everyone" on the outside of a "teen pregnancy center" which had just opened in Olympia, Washington. Her boyfriend Kurt Cobain took the can of paint and added "God Is Gay". Hanna said the place was "a front for a right-wing operation telling teenage girls they’d go to hell if they had abortions." This pop culture anecdote was described in Kerrang magazine, Far Out magazine, Uproxx website and Ultimate Classic Rock website.

I can observe that some of these sources are from groups that can be regarded as critics, such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL. But even so, these sources include Fortune, The Guardian (looks like a different author, by the way), The Hill, US News & World (by way of the Associated Press), and R29 (part of Vice Media). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Some more sources are now listed here, and they include The Washington Post, Stat, CNBC, The LA Times, John Jay College, and USA Today. I think that, taken collectively, clearly takes it out of the narrow categories of critics and topic scholars, and into a significant swath of general use. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, I don't think it's an accurate description.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes The first time I wanted to visit this page, I typed in fake abortion clinic. This is clearly the most used name for this topic. The article could say that it is mostly called this way by critics. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:348D:CEC3:F314:F872 (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Qualified yes fake abortion clinic is used as a redirect and is in common enough usage that it should have some explanation for the term and why it's used. That being said, I think anywhere in the lead paragraph is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Impressive work by Binksternet, but we could find just as many, if not more, usages of the far less hostile term "anti-abortion pregnancy center" in reliable sources. Again, "fake abortion clinic" is not a suitable description in the first line of an encyclopedic article. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

To repeat yet again, the number of search engine hits is not the appropriate measure here, nor is the quantity of perceived hostility. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Skeptical no. I see that a lot of sourcing has been produced above of "neutral" sources describing these centers as "fake abortion clinics". Absent is any mention of a CPC describing itself as an "abortion clinic". For example, can anyone point to a CPC website where they call themselves an "abortion clinic"? Or where they state that they provide abortions? The diff [7] from User:Binksternet below convinced me that the label is not appropriate. Even a supporter of the label is, by the use of the word "or", implying that some CPC's are not in the business of claiming to be abortion clinics. See WP:5P2, in particular the phrase "verifyable accuracy". Adoring nanny (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I just took a quick look at the first source listed on the long list just above ([8]). It says: When the researchers searched for “abortion clinic near me” and “abortion pill”, Google displayed a selection of 3 local providers in listings headed “abortion clinic” or “abortion pill” on its first results page. The research found that in some cases where there was only one registered abortion clinic in the whole state, Google instead directed users to fake clinics in their vicinity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I just did a search on "CPAP", and [9] was on the first page of hits. I also tried a search on "fly Boston to New Haven", and the first page of hits included [10], which recommended train travel. A search on "Avis" got me [11] on the first page. I even tried a search on "pregnancy crisis center", and the second hit was a Planned Parenthood page attacking them.[12] The point is that searches often lead to related information, including from competing people and/or ideas. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You are looking for CPCs describing themselves as abortion clinics? That's not the issue at hand. You are bringing up quite another matter—the central point of the article—a fact which is thoroughly covered in the article already: CPCs are in the business of tricking pregnant women into thinking they are abortion providers, abortion referral agencies, or at the very least the first step toward getting an abortion. This has been published fact for many decades, not in question. If you would like to challenge this aspect of the article, please start a new talk page topic with its own header. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

If an entity is a "fake X", I would expect them to describe themselves as an "X". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting expectation, and unrelated to the question at hand. For the purpose of this RfC, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether CPCs have called themselves abortion clinics. Other parties have, and frequently enough to list. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. They have helped to clarify the issue for me. If "other parties" describe them as something, then perhaps the "other parties" are faking, but the CPCs themselves are not. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you've made up your mind, which is fine. But it's untrue to characterize sources that describe them as fake as all being sources that, themselves, are faking. There are clearly some sources that are advocates against CPCs. But if we discount those sources, we still have multiple sources from mainstream news organizations that say the same thing. Our policies on this require us to base what we say on such independent secondary sources, and not on original research based on an editor's interpretation of whether or not the use of particular language in the names of CPCs is or is not intentionally misleading. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Is WP:5P2 a Wikipedia policy? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It's an information page. We have a policy page at WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are clear, here. Your position is that, if something is sourced, but inaccurate, it belongs in an article, not withstanding the sentence at WP:5P2 All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this is best expressed at the lead section of WP:Verifiability. We go by what reliable sources say is accurate. We do not go by what an editor thinks is accurate or inaccurate, because that would violate WP:No original research. That's what "verifiable accuracy" means. What I'm advocating for this page is accurate, according to reliable sources. Obviously, I would never advocate content that reliable sources characterize as inaccurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny you are misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter whether the Moon Landing and Round Earth are TRUE, Neutrality requires that we accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say about them. Any arguments about whether they are true or not will be ignored. We do not waste time on anyone trying to debate the "truth" of Evolution, Global Warming, or any other topic. Similarly any attempt to argue whether "fake abortion clinic" is true will be ignored. The only thing that matters here is whether "fake abortion clinic" is actually in use as an alternate name, and whether that usage is sufficiently significant to mention. Alsee (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes : WP:OTHERNAMES states: "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes: Per the overwhelming sourcing provided by Binksternet. The "they don't call themselves that" argument advanced by some is not in WP:OTHERNAMES and is frankly completely irrelevant. The Byzantine Empire never called themselves that either, nor does Germany call itself "Germany". Loki (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - This is the way a huge number of reliable sources describe them. I support including it in the lead along the lines as it is currently (not in the first sentence). The arguments that a subject must describe itself in a certain way -- organizations which, as we cover in the article, have had many legal challenges specifically because they misrepresent themselves -- are intensely unpersuasive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just noticed this "yes" opinion which really should be a "no" since the proposition in question asks if "fake abortion" clinic should be in the first sentence while you have said that it shouldn't. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  My mistake. I misread the question as asking about the lead. I think it should be in the lead. Without time to revisit the sourcing right now, I'm just striking my boldtext vote for now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes per WP:OTHERNAMES, extensive coverage in reliable sourcing that uses that term. To answer the arguments made above, saying that it is an alternative name is not using it in the article voice; it is just (accurately) covering the fact that that is how they are often called. Attributing this to "critics" is inappropriate because some of the sources using it are impartial news sources and even scholarly journals. Neither are names in common use required to be neutral or dispassionate in any case - we report the common names, we don't judge them. The question of whether the subjects themselves use the term is not a meaningful criteria. Likewise, arguments along the lines of "I don't think it's accurate" or "I don't think they present themselves as abortion clinics" are immaterial - to report it as an alternative name, we only care about whether it is commonly-used that way in high-quality sources, which it plainly is. --Aquillion (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• Qualified Yes per Bink, Trypotofish, and Aquillion. If the sources call 'em that, then we get to call 'em that. However, we could use a more formal term, for example "posing as" or "impersonating," if that would be more encyclopedic. The issue I see is one of tone. The truth is behind paywalls and propaganda's free. Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible, and "fake" is accurate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• No, as per the others. In fact we might want to remove pregnancy resource center too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• No, Not unless we also include the term "Pro-life pregnancy center.", a term that is far more common. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Including "pro-life pregnancy center" would be supported by sources, so it looks like you would be in favor of the above proposal. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• No as the sources presented are certainly reliable but would set an impossible untenable precedent; do terms like "myth" or "heresy" deserve mention in the first sentence of articles like Hinduism or Arminianism or "pro-abortion" in Abortion rights movement? Of course, the best partial counterexample is Creation myth. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think the idea of using both terms in the lead is a good idea, and I would happily support it. As for setting a precedent, that's just not how WP works. No other page would be required to make content decisions based simply on a decision here, and the comparisons with Hinduism are exaggerated. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with that. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  If someone can point me to a source for it, I'll add it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• No but I support including it in the lead, where it currently sits. The WP policy for alternate names being included in the lead sentence is not exclusive to the opening sentence; in fact, it says "or opening paragraph." Mission accomplished.

Also, Scorpions13256, provide some sources for that argument like Blinkernet did above. I think you make a great point.Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I have only looked at the headlines, but so far I have found this, this this, and this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, Fox News uses it a lot, but I am not sure if it is reliable enough. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added it: [13] (as well as the corresponding redirect). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I am now in favor of the proposal also to include the term "Fake Pregnancy Center" per WP:NPOV. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• No - Keep in First Paragraph It does not need to be in the FIRST sentence. The alternative name "Fake Abortion Clinic" is in fact prominently in the first paragraph, which is consistent with all Wikipedia policies. As edited this position allows the exact reason the name is used by scholars and other advocates to be stated (ie, language to the effect: CPCs are sometimes referred to as fake abortion clinics by scholars, the media, and supporters of abortion rights due to deceptive advertising practices that may obscure the clinic's anti-abortion agenda to potential patients seeking abortions). Placing this alternative name in the first sentence without elaboration is not helpful to the reader, and does not read naturally. –Zfish118^⋉talk 14:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• No – "fake abortion clinic" is a non-neutral description of a "pregnancy crisis centers". It is not another name for them according to the majority of sources that have been presented. The lead should remain the same; however, the sentence, which mentions "fake abortion clinic" in the lead, should say "described as" rather than "referred to as". Also, the phrase should not be bolded but rather only placed in quotation marks. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• No - The way it is now is the perfectly fine. Another option would be introducing it in the second sentence maybe. The issue with just presenting it as an alternative name is that it’s used under the connotation that CPC’s mislead people to believe they are running an abortion clinic, and that context couldn’t be easily translated to the reader through the first sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment No I don't like that many almost all of the sources that are mentioned to support this are from pro-choice organizations (i.e Planned Parenthood ect.) eta:regardless this can't be in wikipedia voice, and seems npov anyway Bedfordres (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, a bunch of those sources are mainstream media and topic scholars. Some are even pro-life. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I should remove almost all, but the majority are pro-choice/femminist, i.e are not "center" I stand by that this should not be in wikipedia voice. Bedfordres (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Qualified yes. In the sources listed above, the name isn't described by them, but indicate that they are described as such. SWinxy (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Lead. I'm not too particular about whether it's in the first sentence, and dedicating a separate sentence to it may well be more appropriate to explain the usage. There is abundant sourcing for this phrase being used, it is clearly significant to understanding the subject and why it is controversial. It is clearly WP:Due weight to explain why this alternate term is used. Alsee (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• No. Its current position is appropriate, but the citation overkill needs to be trimmed. StAnselm (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  I grouped the sources so that readability is now improved. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, it's still citation overkill. And I don't understand why you made three footnotes with two each; why not just one with six? StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd suggest that editors propose which citations to remove and which to retain, here in talk. Since that's not the RfC topic, I'd also suggest making a separate subsection for that discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Firstly, I oppose removing ANY of those citations, since as can be seen from the contentious discussion above, in my opinion, they are all needed. StAnselm (of all the editors who contributed to this discussion) is the only one arguing that there are too many sources - based not on POLICY but on an ESSAY which talks about readability concerns. I have fixed the readability concerns with my edit, and, as I said in my edit summary, I made 3 with 2 references each for easier readability on mouse-over of the reference tag. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, nobody else is talking about it because it's not really part of this discussion. I'm happy to wait until the RfC is concluded before we address this issue. StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This viewpoint is one-sided and misleading to the reader. If a visit to a medical pregnancy clinic, along with a transcript of an interview perhaps with the CEO or RN's representing said clinic, would show a clearer picture of what pregnancy medical clinics such as these actually represent. This should not be an opinion piece from one viewpoint, but a deep dive on the ins and outs of a functioning pregnancy medical clinic. It does not make sense there are three pregnancy medical clinics and centers in the country for every Planned Parenthood facility, if other options were not needed. 71.9.48.5 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• No as per non-NPOV arguments above. Félix An (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Views of medical associations

In a lead-related disagreement that is closely intertwined with the discussion above, we have differing views of an attributed opinion that I sourced to two medical professional associations: [14], [15]. In my opinion, it is better to attribute the opinion to the associations, than to say it vaguely in Wikipedia's voice. I also consider the source from the two associations, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, is a reliable and due-weight source, with an impact factor ranking (per our page) of 9th out of 128 pediatrics journals and 30th out of 193 public health journals. I have notified WikiProject Medicine of this discussion, to get more opinions on the suitability of this material ([16]). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The ATTRIBUTED statement (as you put it) is clearly better than an UNATTRIBUTED "some" which is WP:WEASELWORDS. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

An attributed quotation is is fine when it has due weight in an article. The quote in question doesn't for a variety of reasons. The lead is supposed to preview the body of the article. While it is true that the body contains criticisms of crisis pregnancy centers, no material from the quoted sources appears in the body. The quote is a throw-in from otherwise unused sources and not especially prominent ones. These are not America's leading obstetric, gynecological, or pediatric societies. Thus to feature their quote in the lead is most definitely giving them undue weight. Perhaps the quote could be placed in an appropriate section in the body of the article. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the material in both the lead and farther down on the page. It's an odd criterion to say that only the leading medical society is eligible for us to cite. Ones that are legitimate medical societies that represent medical practice in their indicated fields are reliable sources, as we define RS, for the mainstream views of practitioners in those medical fields. I hope that some editors from WP:MED will be able to advise us about these two societies. I'd also be happy to ask at WP:RSN. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added it lower on the page, so that should take care of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixing the article to reflect a more NPOV, and to also be more globally focused.

Hello, @Avatar317. I have made this section on this talk page so we can discuss the changes I make before I proceed with new ones. I appreciate your suggestion of doing edits incrementally, and for this most recent one, I have edited the first portion of the article (the lead paragraphs). I won't edit anything else until we discuss and find consensus on the amended contents and new structure of the lead section.

I hope to have a productive conversation where we can work together to improve this article to reflect a more neutral point of view, whilst not adhering to one specific perspective. DocZach (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the lead section I proposed, which I see as much more neutral and accurate than the current one.

A crisis pregnancy center (CPC), sometimes called a pregnancy resource center (PRC) or a pro-life pregnancy center, is a type of nonprofit organization that typically offers counseling, prenatal care, and/or a variety of medical services from an anti-abortion perspective. Many crisis pregnancy centers are established and/or supported by anti-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers do not provide or refer for abortions. Instead, CPCs often deter women from obtaining abortions and urge other alternatives instead.

In the United States, there are an estimated 2,500 to 4,000 CPCs that qualify as medical clinics. Crisis pregnancy centers may provide pregnancy testing, sonograms, prenatal care, ultrasounds, STD testing, counseling, and/or other services. Some crisis pregnancy centers operate without medical licensing under varying degrees of regulation. There are many more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics in the United States. As of 2020, there were 807 abortion clinics in the United States. Hundreds more CPCs operate outside of the United States; including in Canada, Latin America, Africa, and Europe.

Many CPCs are run by Christian groups that adhere to a socially conservative and anti-abortion viewpoint, and they often operate in affiliation with one of three non-profit organizations: Care Net, Heartbeat International, or Birthright International. In 1993, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) was formed to provide legal advice to CPCs in the U.S. During the presidency of George W. Bush (2001–2009), U.S. CPCs received tens of millions of dollars in federal grants. As of 2015, more than half of U.S. state governments helped to fund CPCs directly or through the sale of Choose Life license plates.

Crisis pregnancy centers are controversial, especially in the United States. Abortion rights activists claim that such centers are obstructing and hectoring women by deterring them away from accessing abortions or accurate information about them. CPCs are also criticized for sometimes disseminating misinformation about the effectiveness of condoms and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. CPCs are sometimes called "fake abortion clinics" by scholars, the media, and supporters of abortion rights, due to deceptive advertising that obscures the centers' opposition to abortion. Legal and legislative action regarding CPCs has generally attempted to curb deceptive advertising, targeting those that imply that they offer abortion services by requiring centers to disclose that they do not offer certain services or possess certain qualifications.

---

cc: @PRRfan @Avatar317 DocZach (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Thanks, @DocZach. Let's take it one step at a time. You propose to change the lead sentence from "...established by anti-abortion groups primarily to persuade pregnant women not to have an abortion" to "...that typically offers counseling, prenatal care, and/or a variety of medical services from an anti-abortion perspective." I salute your intention to make this article more accurate and neutral, but I would argue that this change does neither; it obscures rather than illuminates. As indicated by the three reliable sources cited in the original version of the lead (and many more cited in rest of the article), these centers are created by anti-abortion groups, so the lead should say so. Moreover, the phrase "...from an anti-abortion perspective", uttered by the host of the NPR interview cited in the proposed version, is murkier than a lead sentence should be. Fortunately, we need not even look beyond the cited interview for a clearer description by a journalist from a reliable-source organization: "The point of a crisis pregnancy center, which is often known as an anti-abortion center, or even just a pregnancy center, is to convince people to continue their pregnancies"—in so many words, "to persuade pregnant women not to have an abortion". I have more thoughts about the rest of your proposed changes, but perhaps you'd like to continue talking about the lead? PRRfan (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@DocZach: Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View is often NOT what new editors think it is. It is NOT to give WP:FALSEBALANCE just because there are two opinions on a subject, but rather it is to describe subjects as they are characterized in the WP:BESTSOURCES.

Additionally, the lead should NOT be the place where you start making changes when you edit an article, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's focus on one body part at a time. I agree that the lead should be the last part to edit.

1. I am fine with the way Origin is currently written. I have no disputes for that section.
2. I have major disputes with the Activities section, and I will show the replacement for that section that I propose.

Activities (proposed replacement)

While CPCs often look like abortion clinics and are intentionally located near them, most do not provide abortions or even contraceptive care. However, 38% of CPCs do not clearly state that they don't provide abortions on their home page. CPCs often offer services such as free pregnancy tests, prenatal care, ultrasounds, STD testing, and/or classes for budgeting and resume building. A few CPCs also provide contraceptives. Some even supply clothing, maternity housing, food, financial support, and other supplies.

There is a trend toward CPCs obtaining some form of medical certification to be able to expand their abilities and marketing. One such example is to be able to perform sonograms in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term. They may also provide screening for sexually transmitted infections, adoption referrals, religious counseling, post-abortion counseling, financial assistance, prenatal services, child-rearing resources and other services. Peer counselors are typically covered by mandated reporting laws with regard to statutory rape, and they are encouraged to ask about the age of the woman and the biological father.

CPCs have been criticized by supporters of abortion rights for providing misleading and/or graphic information or content to patients. Their advertising campaigns have been criticized as being carefully designed to reach groups they perceive as being more inclined towards seeking abortion, such as young women, women of color, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Often, they place billboards near educational institutions and utilize public transportation and bus shelters for promotion. For example, Care Net's "Urban Initiative" specifically aims to attract Black and Latina women by advertising on platforms like the Black Entertainment Network (BET) and drawing parallels between abortion and historical instances of oppression, such as slavery.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, an independent abortion-providing agency, stated that young women were particularly vulnerable to religiously influenced anti-abortion "Crisis Pregnancy Centres", unregulated by the National Health Service, because many of the women knew less about the healthcare system or did not want to consult their family GP. CPCs have focused on what they call "underserved" communities in an attempt to lower the high rates of abortion in communities of color.

Some jurisdictions are passing legislation that designates crisis pregnancy centers as emergency care facilities. In the State of Louisiana, CPCs are considered safe-haven zones where parents may surrender custody of newborn infants.

---

I will explain major changes that make this replacement necessary:

1. The claim that most crisis pregnancy centers are both unlicensed and do not provide medical services is false. First of all, the sourced paper that is given as a reference for that claim doesn't mention anything about how "most crisis pregnancy centers are unlicensed/do not provide medical services." Second of all, the Guttmacher Institute is not an unbiased source for matters concerning abortion. The Guttmacher Institute was literally founded as a subsidiary to Planned Parenthood, and they blatantly state on their website that they are pro-abortion and fighting for abortion rights, asking people to donate for it. And the claim that most crisis pregnancy centers offer no medical services is so obviously absurd. Of course almost all of them offer at least one type of "medical service." I doubt there is even a noticeable fraction of such centers that don't offer pregnancy tests or some form of prenatal care. Therefore, a simple fix to this problem is to change the wording of most to many. I would even argue that we should change it to some, but I am attempting to find compromise here.
2. Something you may have noticed as one of the things I tried changing in the lead paragraphs is the claim that "CPCs do not offer contraceptives." This is false. Numerous CPCs, at least in recent years, have begun offering contraceptives. Most of the contraceptives offered are condoms, but some now even provide forms of birth control. This is also something I added in my proposal of the "Activities" section when I said "A few CPCs also provide contraceptives." https://apnews.com/article/e8640b10a242493e90a258a8cbe9cfee
3. When talking about CPCs being criticized, I believe it is profoundly important to specify who is criticizing them. The obvious fact of the matter is that they are criticized by proponents of abortion rights, and it is only proper to include that in the statement about them being criticized.
4. The comment about "racial targeting" is a blatant violation of NPOV. If anything, Planned Parenthood is "racial targeting" by launching their initiative to help people of color get more abortions, and for having most of their clinics in minority neighborhoods. Accusing CPCs in general of "racial targeting" makes no sense, and we already have a part that talks about how some of their efforts involve reaching out to people of color, inviting them to seek resources at their clinics. Many organizations of a wide variety of purposes have efforts to reach out to minority groups, and we don't ascribe them as engaging in "racial targeting" or "sexuality targeting."
5. The most egregious part of this article that is completely a biased point of view is the "conclusion" of the Activities section: Overall, CPCs may offer support to individuals deliberating whether or not to proceed with their pregnancy but also potentially offer misleading information about abortion-related care and referrals. Pregnant individuals have the right to have access to truthful guidance, decision-making assistance, and appropriate resources to make the best choice for themselves regarding their pregnancy or abortion. I don't even know if I need to explain why that is one of the most improper, unprofessional, and biased things you could include in an article like this. It is a direct endorsement of abortion rights and a direct point of view about what "pregnant individuals should have the right to do."
6. In my proposal, I added a portion at the end to include about how many of these CPCs are being recognized as "safe havens" and emergency-care facilities under safe-haven laws.

---

I have tried my best to fully explain all of the changes to this section. I won't propose changes to other sections until we can find a consensus for the Activities section. I look forward to coming to an agreement. DocZach (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, DocZach. I agree with your changes, with one specific exception and with a proposal for a further change to the top two paragraphs. The specific exception is to your point #3, about this proposed text: "CPCs have been criticized by supporters of abortion rights for providing misleading and/or graphic information or content to patients." I agree that criticisms should note who's doing the criticizing, but in this case, we can simply plainly state, as backed up by plenty of reliable sources, that "Many CPCs provide misleading and/or graphic information or content to patients." More broadly, I think we could condense the top two paragraphs under a topic sentence—something like:

"To fulfill their mission of persuading pregnant women not to get abortions, CPCs offer a variety of services; among the more common ones are free pregnancy tests, prenatal care, screening for sexually transmitted infections, and adoption referrals. Some offer counseling, including religious counseling and post-abortion counseling. (Peer counselors are typically covered by mandated reporting laws with regard to statutory rape, and they are encouraged to ask about the age of the woman and the biological father.) Some supply material support: clothing, maternity housing, food, financial support, and other supplies. Some offer training in such topics as budgeting, resume building, and child-rearing. A few CPCs provide contraceptives. An increasing number of CPCs obtain some form of medical certification to be able to expand their abilities and marketing; for example, permission to perform sonograms in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term.

"When pregnant women come in for these services, CPCs attempt to persuade—or, anti-abortion groups say, hector or manipulate—them to forgo an abortion. Many provide misleading and/or graphic information or content. CPCs often look like abortion clinics and are intentionally located near them; 38% of CPCs do not clearly state that they don't provide abortions on their home page..."

What do you think? PRRfan (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

New proposal for "Activities" section with your suggestions in-mind:

While crisis pregnancy centers often look like and are intentionally located near abortion clinics, most CPCs do not provide abortions or abortion referrals. However, 38% of CPCs do not clearly state that they do not provide abortions on their homepage. In order to fulfill their mission of encouraging women to continue their pregnancies, CPCs often offer services such as free pregnancy tests, prenatal care, ultrasounds, STD testing, adoption resources, and/or classes for budgeting and resume building. A few CPCs also provide contraceptives. Some even supply clothing, maternity housing, food, financial support, and other supplies. There is a trend toward CPCs obtaining some form of medical certification to be able to expand their abilities and marketing. One such example is to be able to perform sonograms in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term.

CPCs have been widely criticized by supporters of abortion rights for providing misleading and/or graphic information or content to patients. Their advertising campaigns have been criticized as being carefully designed to reach groups they perceive as being more inclined towards seeking abortion, such as young women, women of color, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Often, they place billboards near educational institutions and utilize public transportation and bus shelters for promotion. For example, Care Net's "Urban Initiative" specifically aims to attract Black and Latina women by advertising on platforms like the Black Entertainment Network (BET) and drawing parallels between abortion and historical instances of oppression, such as slavery.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, an independent abortion-providing agency, stated that young women were particularly vulnerable to religiously influenced anti-abortion "Crisis Pregnancy Centres", unregulated by the National Health Service, because many of the women knew less about the healthcare system or did not want to consult their family GP. CPCs have focused on what they call "underserved" communities in an attempt to lower the high rates of abortion in communities of color.

Some jurisdictions are passing legislation that designates crisis pregnancy centers as emergency care facilities. In the State of Louisiana, CPCs are considered safe-haven zones where parents may surrender custody of newborn infants.

---

I have combined the first two paragraphs like you suggested, and have also incorporated some of your suggestions. What are your thoughts on the new proposal? @PRRfan DocZach (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

DocZach, I am glad that you approve of consolidating the various sentences about services. But I think we could better begin this Activities section with a topic sentence: a sentence that expresses the main idea of the paragraph (or passage) in which it occurs. This is a topic sentence: "To fulfill their mission of persuading pregnant women to forgo abortions, CPCs offer a variety of services..." This is not a topic sentence: "While crisis pregnancy centers often look like and are intentionally located near abortion clinics, most CPCs do not provide abortions or abortion referrals." Rather, it is evidence to support a topic sentence—either of a paragraph that describes CPCs' services or, as in my proposed text, of a paragraph describing their manipulative or deceptive practices. PRRfan (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, you have not responded to my critique of "CPCs have been widely criticized by supporters of abortion rights for providing misleading and/or graphic information or content to patients," but we can come back to that after we work out how to begin the section itself. PRRfan (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is my final proposal for the Activities section (bolded parts are where I've implemented your suggestions):

In order to fulfill their mission of persuading women to continue their pregnancies, CPCs often offer services such as free pregnancy tests, prenatal care, ultrasounds, STD testing, adoption resources, and/or classes for budgeting and resume building. A few CPCs also provide contraceptives. Some even supply clothing, maternity housing, food, financial support, and other supplies. There is a trend toward CPCs obtaining some form of medical certification to be able to expand their abilities and marketing. One such example is to be able to perform sonograms in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term. While crisis pregnancy centers often look like and are intentionally located near abortion clinics, most CPCs do not provide abortions or abortion referrals. However, 38% of CPCs do not clearly state that they do not provide abortions on their homepage.

CPCs have been widely criticized by supporters of abortion rights for providing misleading and/or graphic information or content to patients to dissuade them from obtaining abortions. Their advertising campaigns have been criticized as being carefully designed to reach groups they perceive as being more inclined towards seeking abortion, such as young women, women of color, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Often, they place billboards near educational institutions and utilize public transportation and bus shelters for promotion. For example, Care Net's "Urban Initiative" specifically aims to attract Black and Latina women by advertising on platforms like the Black Entertainment Network (BET) and drawing parallels between abortion and historical instances of oppression, such as slavery. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, an independent abortion-providing agency, warned about the lack of regulation on CPCs by the National Health Service in that young women were dissuaded from abortion without full knowledge of their legal options or the consultation of their family GP. CPCs have focused on what they call "underserved" communities in an attempt to lower the high rates of abortion in communities of color.

Some jurisdictions are passing legislation that designates crisis pregnancy centers as emergency care facilities. In the State of Louisiana, CPCs are considered safe-haven zones where parents may surrender custody of newborn infants.

---

I have moved things around so that the topic sentence is first. I also condensed the section into three paragraphs. I have bolded parts where I incorporated your suggestions. @PRRfan DocZach (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, DocZach, and thanks. I'm not sure what you mean by "final proposal," but it's good to move down the line about some CPCs resembling abortion clinics. The first passage of bold text differs from my suggestion, which is "To fulfill their mission of persuading pregnant women to forgo abortions..." It's my contention that this is a more straightforward way to express the mission than the euphemistic "...to continue their pregnancies". If the pregnant woman did nothing, her pregnancy would continue, barring miscarriage or other circumstance. That's the default. CPCs exist to keep her from choosing a different action. Would you care to discuss? PRRfan (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point. We can change the phrasing of the topic sentence to "In order to fulfill their mission of persuading women to forgo abortions." With that implemented, do you agree with the new proposal for the section? DocZach (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

1) I'd prefer the first sentence to read: "In order to fulfill their mission of persuading women to forgo abortions, CPC's advertise and offer pregnancy support services for women with unintended pregnancies. These services often include free pregnancy tests, prenatal care,...."

2) A minor but substantial change: "...most CPCs do not provide abortions or abortion referrals." should be changed to "...CPCs do not provide abortions or abortion referrals." because, according the listed source (MotherJones) and probably every other source in the article, *NO* CPC's provide abortions or abortion referrals.

3) The second to last sentence "Some jurisdictions...." should be removed because the source (AmericanPress.com) doesn't say that CPC's are designated as emergency care facilities; the following sentence "In the State of Louisiana, CPCs are considered safe-haven zones..." is correct.

Otherwise, it looks mostly ok, except for some syntax errors and unacceptable sources which I can fix one-by-one after you replace that section part. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

1) I agree and have no objection.

2) I agree and have no objection.

3) I agree, and will remove the "emergency care facilities" part.

I will implement the changes now, and feel free to fix formatting if there are any mistakes. I greatly appreciate your willingness to compromise and work with me to help improve the article.

cc: @Avatar317 @PRRfan

Also, I will propose my next suggestions in regards to other sections of the article after you (@Avatar317) let me know when everything is set in regards to formatting or syntax (or whatever you were saying) of the Activities section. DocZach (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you are okay with this:

In regards to point 3 that you brought up, I moved the part about Louisiana safe-haven zones (the one sentence that was at the end) to be at the end of the first paragraph instead. Imo, it didn't make much sense for it to have its own paragraph, and I think it's good to keep the section as two paragraphs as they each have their own distinct purpose. DocZach (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@DocZach, @Avatar317, I think we're getting there! You propose:

In order to fulfill their mission of persuading women to forgo abortions, CPCs advertise and offer pregnancy support services for women with unintended pregnancies. These services often include free pregnancy tests, prenatal care, ultrasounds, STD testing, adoption resources, and/or classes for budgeting and resume building. Some supply clothing, maternity housing, food, financial support, and other supplies. In 2020, one Texas chain of CPCs began providing contraceptives to unmarried women, stating that they wanted to help reduce unplanned pregnancies. There is a trend toward CPCs obtaining some form of medical certification to be able to expand their abilities and marketing. One such example is to be able to perform sonograms in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term. While CPCs often look like and are intentionally located near abortion clinics, CPCs do not provide abortions or abortion referrals. However, 38% of CPCs do not clearly state that they do not provide abortions on their homepage. In some jurisdictions, such the State of Louisiana, CPCs are considered safe-haven zones where parents may surrender custody of newborn infants.

I propose:

"To fulfill their mission of persuading pregnant women not to get abortions, CPCs advertise and offer pregnancy support services for women with unintended pregnancies. Among the more common ones are free pregnancy tests, prenatal care, screening for sexually transmitted infections, and adoption referrals. Some offer counseling, including religious counseling and post-abortion counseling. Some supply material support: clothing, maternity housing, food, financial support, and other supplies. Some offer training in such topics as budgeting, resume building, and child-rearing. An increasing number of CPCs obtain some form of medical certification to be able to expand their abilities and marketing; for example, permission to perform sonograms in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term. In some jurisdictions, such the State of Louisiana, CPCs are considered safe-haven zones where parents may surrender custody of newborn infants. In 2020, one Texas chain of CPCs began providing contraceptives to unmarried women, stating that they wanted to help reduce unplanned pregnancies.

This version presents the services in somewhat more orderly fashion: "common" ones, counseling, material support, training, and medical. It also spells out "STD" and eliminates the ungainly "and/or". It moves the mention of contraception to the end because that is not a service directly for, as the topic sentence says, "women with unintended pregnancies". Finally, it leaves the sentence about non-provision of abortion services and lookalike clinics for the next paragraph. What do you think? PRRfan (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

✅ I have no objection. What do you think about PRR's suggestion, @Avatar317? DocZach (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the "forgo abortions" because these centers are definitely NOT targeting women who already decided they want to keep their child and need all sorts of material help because they are poor.

I now thought of what I think is a better first sentence: "To fulfill their mission of persuading women with unintended pregnancies to forgo abortions, CPCs advertise and offer pregnancy support services."

The rest I agree with. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree with adding the "unintended pregnancies" part to the topic sentence. CPCs provide services to mothers whether their pregnancy was intended or not. Some women have gotten pregnant intentionally, but then they may have experienced an event such as their partner leaving them that may have led them to start considering abortion, and CPCs are purposed to help those women as well. DocZach (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It was already in the topic sentence, I just changed the order. Maybe it should be "unwanted pregnancies"? ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would just say:

To fulfill their mission of persuading pregnant women to forgo abortions, CPCs advertise and offer pregnancy support services.

Because if we use unintended, then that leaves out the people who did intend to get pregnant but for some reason are considering abortion down the line. And if we use unwanted, then that leaves out the people who do want the baby, but who feel like they need an abortion for a specific concern such as economics. DocZach (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could be:

To fulfill their mission of persuading women with unintended, unwanted, or difficult pregnancies to forgo abortions, CPCs advertise and offer pregnancy support services. DocZach (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Although I see Avatar317's point about CPCs being more concerned with stopping abortion than supporting babies, I think we need not load up this sentence with adjectives; I support DocZach's "To fulfill their mission of persuading pregnant women to forgo abortions, CPCs advertise and offer pregnancy support services." PRRfan (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, all. I will update the paragraph to:

To fulfill their mission of persuading pregnant women to forgo abortions, CPCs advertise and offer pregnancy support services. Among the more common ones are free pregnancy tests, prenatal care, screening for sexually transmitted infections, and adoption referrals. Some offer counseling, including religious counseling and post-abortion counseling. Some supply material support: clothing, maternity housing, food, financial support, and other supplies. Some offer training in such topics as budgeting, resume building, and child-rearing. An increasing number of CPCs obtain some form of medical certification to be able to expand their abilities and marketing; for example, permission to perform sonograms in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term. In some jurisdictions, such the State of Louisiana, CPCs are considered safe-haven zones where parents may surrender custody of newborn infants. In 2020, one Texas chain of CPCs began providing contraceptives to unmarried women, stating that they wanted to help reduce unplanned pregnancies.

And I'm moving this text from the article pending our discussion on how to incorporate it in the next paragraph: "While CPCs often look like and are intentionally located near abortion clinics, CPCs do not provide abortions or abortion referrals. However, 38% of CPCs do not clearly state that they do not provide abortions on their homepage." PRRfan (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Just a friendly reminder that named references only need to be defined one time, then we just use the name of the reference for subsequent uses. Please always check your work for cite errors. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

DocZach, this article is already a good summary of its topic. It doesn't need any kind of major changes with regard to Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV. Your POV tag at the top is out of order. Minor tweaks to wording can be discussed, but major shifts in direction are not indicated. We have followed the best sources about the topic, especially scholarly works published in scholarly journals, which are the highest sources available. Just about every scholarly work characterizes CPCs as having a false front. That's why this article must continue to tell the reader about the falsehood inherent in the great majority of CPCs. It's critically important to the topic. Your proposed version is a whitewash. Any such version which ignores scholarly analysis is not going to gain adherents on this talk page. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, the topic is primarily related to the United States. Trying to make it "global" will be an exercise in futility. Certainly we will welcome any information coming from non-US observers, but by far the most CPC activity is in the US. Don't try to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the global situation, the lead says "Hundreds more CPCs operate outside of the U.S., including in Canada, Latin America, Africa, and Europe" but provides practically no detail on countries outside the US in the the actual body. In Canada, for example, there's been political debate about whether or not such places should be funded on a federal level, how more exist than actual abortion clinics, and how they're often the only option in rural areas. [17] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Since you have the facts at hand, you would be welcome to add information about Canada. Even so, the other countries are dancing to the US tune; it's mainly US-based groups which have been pushing the CPC concept upon other countries. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not the individual to add the global warning, first of all. Second of all, you should have completely read all of my disputes before randomly removing the NPOV tag when clearly this article is a POV mess. You don't get to decide yourself to remove the tag just because you think this article is so fantastic. This article endorses a "right to access abortion" explicitly in that it literally says it at the conclusion of the Analysis section. It is also incredibly biased and written very poorly, for reasons I have already explained, and that I would really appreciate if you read. DocZach (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

And YOU don't get to tag the article just because YOU think it is terrible.

Tag specific cases where you think the statement does not properly paraphrase the source, or does so in a biased way. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already cited examples, one of the most prominent being the conclusion of the Activities section, which presents an OPINIONATED CONCLUSION in WP:WIKIVOICE.

Overall, CPCs may offer support to individuals deliberating whether or not to proceed with their pregnancy but also potentially offer misleading information about abortion-related care and referrals. Pregnant individuals have the right to have access to truthful guidance, decision-making assistance, and appropriate resources to make the best choice for themselves regarding their pregnancy or abortion.

And in respond to your comments about me adding the NPOV tag, I will also emphasize that YOU don't get to remove the tag from the article just because YOU and ONE or TWO other people are persistent on keeping this article, a very obvious essay-like critique piece on CPCs, in its current state. DocZach (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of tagging an article at the top is to attract editors who will then proceed to fix it. If the article has multiple active and involved editors, no tag is necessary. Per WP:WTRMT, a tag should be removed "If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed" or if "there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue, and you are reasonably implementing those changes." One person cannot insist that the tag must stay; that's not how consensus works. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That specific part asks people to discuss with the placer before removing it, and it is for when editors have mistakenly placed the notice or the notice was placed in error. None of the aforementioned requirements for the reason you are claiming were met. And there is not a consensus yet. We are working on coming to one if you looked above the block of sources, and you are more than welcome to help find a compromise if you are legitimately interested in improving the article. DocZach (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"CPCs deceive pregnant women..."

The above blanket lead statement should either be changed or eliminated altogether. The original statement in this place, sourced to the ''[[International Journal of Women's Health]]'' read "CPCs aim not to educate and inform but to deceive, hector, and manipulate pregnant women attempting to learn about their pregnancy options." Since this wording obviously included strong POV it was shortened to to the simpler statement. But even this wording is not suitable unless quoted from the source. There is already plenty in the lead to showthat CPCs often use their own "facts" in talking to clients about abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)