Talk:Crisis pregnancy center/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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)

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:

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)

Request for participation

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

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)

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)
Is it so surprising that the marketing toward pregnant teens focuses on social lives and freedoms? Teens are not (necessarily) psychologically matured and cannot necessarily make the same decisions based on the same criteria as a mature adult. While it may seem dubious to focus on that, trying to point out to a pregnant teen the various medical issues may take away from their decision the impact that a child no doubt will have on her life.
Moreover, in this very article it has a source (http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060717101140-30092.pdf) that points out that some pregnancy centers give misleading medical information about a link between breast cancer and abortions to people who may not know much better. That is not valid medical advice--that is psychological manipulation, and lying. In the Pro-life article, and this article, there is discussion about providing sonograms to people who visit CPCs--in the effort to psychologically dissuade the person from aborting the pregnancy by showing them an image that the CPC hopes will cause an emotional connection. This is the height of psychological manipulation to achieve a certain end.
I think there are definitely POV issues with this article, but not in the information but the writing style. It clearly takes information that is seemingly relevant to the article and phrases it to obviously slant POV. CPCs have the explicit mission of trying to stop abortion, so their advice should not be considered objective. That does not, however, invalidate their purpose or services. I do have a problem with the effectiveness section, namely in that "positive impact" is poorly defined. When the definition seems to be clear, its obvious that the "positive impact" is anti-abortion, etc.70.232.181.5 (talk) 14:54, 13 August 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)

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)

Unreferenced content moved here

Some content has apparently remained unreferenced since it was fact-tagged in March. I am moving that content here; if it is sourced it can certainly be replaced.

  • CPCs may also provide the contact information of outside agencies that provide medical care, legal aid, or social services.[citation needed] A small number of CPCs are affiliated with maternity houses, or temporary homes for pregnant women and young mothers.[citation needed]

-- 74.10.197.230 (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

More unreferenced material:

  • Some CPCs direct clients to an organization that provides scholarships for mothers who give their babies up for adoption.[citation needed] In contrast to other reproductive health centers, such as those operated by Planned Parenthood, CPCs do not provide the contact information for abortion providers or emergency contraception.[citation needed] For this reason, phone books may list CPC's in a section labeled "Abortion Alternatives" (as opposed to "Abortion Services").[citation needed]

-- Whatever404 (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

More unreferenced content:

Opening sections POV

In the opening section, the sentence "CPCs are distinct from pregnancy options counseling, which offers secular, medically-based information about choices concerning pregnancy, including information about abortion" is POV and implies that no CPCs are secular or offer medically-based information. The main difference between CPCs and pregnancy options counseling is the CPCs offer alternatives to abortions, while pregnancy options counseling believes abortion is an option for a woman to choose. I have changed the sentence to "CPCs are distinct from pregnancy options counseling, which views abortion as a legitimate option." I feel this more accurately describes why CPCs are different from pregnancy options counseling and is not POV. Please stop changing it to the previous biased version. If anyone feels the sentence could be better worded, please recommend what we could possibly change it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimidgy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

3 separate editors have reverted you, yet only know you thought it was appropriate to try to discuss the matter (yet you have still reverted to your preferred version). Please see WP:BRD. Typically, to avoid edit wars, users are encouraged to make bold changes to articles, but if they are reverted, it is never appropriate to re-insert the new, disputed content. Instead, you are supposed to go to the talk page and discuss further to try and raise consensus for your changes or reach a compromise. Please, if someone reverts your edit again, DO NOT re-instate it until there is consensus for it.
With that out of the way, the phrasing "which views abortion as a legitimate option" is problematic because to me it connotes that abortion is not a legitimate option. We shouldn't say that it is, and we shouldn't say that it isn't. We should take a more neutral tone. Perhaps there is a way to rephrase in another manner? I'm also not sure I agree with your issues with the longstanding sentence. Are there any secular CPCs? Perhaps the sentence would be better if we added "exclusively" in front of "secular, medically based". Maybe we should back up and ask, what is the key difference between POC and CPC? The latter tries to persuade women not to have abortions, right? Maybe we could say "CPCs are distinct from pregnancy options counseling, because CPCs act to discourage women from having abortions while pregnancy options counselors act to non-judgmentally information and support a pregnant woman who is considering all her choices regarding the continuation of her pregnancy." well... something not so wordy. I tried to combine two sentences from the POC article... but you get the idea. I would be open to a rephrasing, but the previous version is superior to the recent change IMO. I'd encourage you to revert yourself while this discussion is ongoing until we can reach a new consensus on a compromise sentence.-Andrew c [talk] 20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the way I phrased it is not the best. I was trying to illustrate that POC offers abortion referrals, while CPCs do not because they do not think abortion is an acceptable choice. I agree that we need to figure out what the key difference between the two is. However, wording it as "secular, medically-based" implies that CPCs do not offer advice that involves the discipline of medicine. From my understanding, CPCs also want to help the health of the mother as well as the fetus/unborn child. They also see abortion as obviously harming the fetus/unborn child and many hold the view that abortion has psychological and physical consequences. The Washington Post article, from what I can tell, doesn't suggest that POCs offer "secular, medically-based information" and CPCs do not.
How about something like "Crisis Pregnancy Centers are distinct from pregnancy options counseling, which includes information about abortion during counseling."--Minimidgy (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, CPCs often include information about abortion. They may highlight the negative aspects of abortion or even add deceptive or incorrect information about abortion, all for the purpose of dissuading the client. It isn't that CPCs don't discuss information about abortion... so that phrasing doesn't capture the difference. But it's a good try. I'm brainstorming myself. Perhaps the other two individuals who have reverted you may want to contribute to this discussion (hint hint), so we can work together on a compromise. -Andrew c [talk] 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If the problem with the sentence I suggested was that it said POCs offer information about abortion, why is the current sentence okay when it says "CPCs are distinct from pregnancy options counseling, which offers secular, medically-based information about choices concerning pregnancy, including information about abortion"?--Minimidgy (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you have not responded, I went ahead and edited the page to a sentence I believe is neutral.--Minimidgy (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes, as have several other editors at this point. I suggest you clarify your arguments on this page rather than reverting. Whatever404 (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, one of the reverters here. I haven't weighed in before now because I've been busy in real life, but also because I don't see what's wrong with the current version. Is it not true that POC offers secular, medically sound information? Scrolling up to the top of this section, it looks like Minimidgy's main objection is that it allegedly implies that CPCs are never secular and never offer medically-based information. I disagree – the sentence in question exists primarily to describe what POC is, not what CPC counseling isn't. While it could still be POV by making an unfounded insinuation, I will explain why I don't think it does:

In regard to the first point, the intro itself already established that most CPCs are owned by religious pro-life organizations. If there are any fully secular CPCs, they can be mentioned somewhere as the exception to the rule, but do not change the fact that a main difference between POC and CPC counseling is that POC is offered at secular medical establishments, while CPCs are by and large religious.

As for the issue of whether or not CPCs give medically-based information, that very issue is a large part of the controversy over them, and is covered in greater detail further down in the article. The introduction gives generalizations, not in-depth analyses. There is a great deal of questioning as to whether or not CPCs give medically sound information, but POC is intended to do so by its very definition. So to point this out as one of the main differences seems perfectly legit to me.

The primary purpose of POC is to give medically accurate information to help a woman make her own choice, while the primary purpose of CPC is to influence which choice she makes. No matter what else the introduction says, it needs to make this point clearly. --Icarus (Hi!) 16:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No fee + No licence = no legal guarantee of good faith and no professional oversight

This is not, as the editor posted, "dubious". It is OBVIOUS. So obvious that it cannot be sourced. How can you source the fact that professional oversight boards only govern licenced professionals??? That's like trying to source the fact that flood-insurance policies only cover those who buy the insurance, not those who don't. Too obvious to source, and too obvious to NEED a source. SingingZombie (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You are presenting your own synthesis or theory here on wikipedia. We do not allow original research, see WP:NOR. All content needs to be verifiable, see WP:V and WP:CS. Please follow basic Wikipedia policies. What may be obvious to you, may not be so obvious to our readers. We can't just come up with pet theories to criticize subjects of articles. If no one else made this criticism in a published source, it has no place here. You haven't even demonstrated that all CPCs are unlicensed in the first place. Free clinics charge no fees, but are they similarly exempt from legal and professional repercussions? There are a number of holes in your theory which are OBVIOUS to the casual reader. Having simple citations to verifiable sources putting forth actual criticism would help.-Andrew c [talk] 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Free clinics charge no fee, but they DO operate under a professional licence. So no, they are not exempt.
I understand that sources are needed GENERALLY. The problem is, if you don't warn the readers, someone could read the article, go to CPC for a nice free sonogram, and get lied to. SingingZombie (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy or advise. It is not our job to warn readers. If CPCs are offering a dangerous service, and this is notable, then surely there will be other sources saying as much. In fact, we already have a lot of information about allegations of deception and other abuses on the part of CPCs. -Andrew c [talk] 23:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article appears at least somewhat biased against crisis pregnancy centres. It seems that the article's main focus is criticism and political opposition to their activities rather than an actual description of the services offered. If I was reading this article and knew absolutely nothing about CPCs, I would be inclined to believe that their primary purpose is to masquerade as abortion providers and deceive women into making choices with misinformation.

We need to emphasize that essence of crisis pregnancy centres is providing women with alternatives to abortion and support for continuing a pregnancy or raising a child. These include maternal housing and options to continue education. It is true that they also inform women about potential risks associated with abortion. I also realize that some CPCs may have been involved in questionable activities such as false advertising and that the CPC movement as a whole has been criticized by abortion providers. This is notable and belongs in a criticism section. However, it should not be the main focus of an encyclopedia article. The Richard Nixon article, for example, contains only a small section dedicated to the infamous scandals despite the fact that he was well known for them. In fact, many CPC organizations (including Birthright, Heartbeat International, and Carenet) explicitly indicate on their respective websites that they do not participate in abortion. Finally, it should be noted that a poll indicated that 98% of women who visit a CPC have a positive experience.

These changes would balance all sides of the issue and ensure neutrality in the article. 70.64.125.42 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Emergency contraception = not really related..

I noticed that emergency contraception (the morning after pill) is in the See Also section of this page. But what does emergency contraception have to do with crisis pregnancy centers, or abortion? Why have EC there, but not other forms of birth control? I'll delete it. If there's actually a reason I don't know about for it being there, just maybe put a note about it or something. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad link in references

The link to the Waxman report is outdated. Current URL is http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20060717101140-30092.pdf

I'm not sure how to fix this for all the references... Stuffisthings (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC) POV I agree with the previous post. This article reads as biased against Crisis pregnancy centers. CPCs are for the most part Christian and by definition, pro-life/ anti abortion. The addition of phrases like "according to their pro-life beliefs" and "conduct sonograms as a way to persuade women not to abort" are superfluous and lend a negative tone to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relictus9 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I'm just going to assume that no one really wanted to keep "anti-abortion". Assuming that; -Not all CPCs are operated by pro-life groups. -I doubt Unitarians would regard their abortion counseling as secular. -It is unfair and baseless to remove the term "medical" from the CPC's services but to describe the services of POCs as medical counseling from doctors. - Schrandit (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, it's unfair not to describe a non-medical institution as a medical one. Also, if you'll read the lead again, it states that CPCs are distinct both from pregnancy options counseling and from medical counseling by doctors. If you think there's a way that could be stated more clearly, without removing the information or pretending that CPCs give medically-based information, feel free to suggest it! (If you can find evidence of Unitarian religious counseling, you could add "typically non-religious"; I, however, can only find evidence of Unitarian post-abortion counseling, so you'd need a citation. I can find information about non-Unitarian counseling by clergy, but not enough description to know what kind of religious element there is there) Roscelese (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Also - while I'd contest your statement that "not all CPCs are operated by pro-life groups," because they are, the lead currently states that the CPCs are founded by pro-life "supporters," not groups. What's the problem? Roscelese (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
-To characterize POCs as medical but CPCs as non-medical is unfair, perhaps describe neither as such?
-frankly, I can find little information about POCs at all, I suspect there are very few that are not fronts for abortion businesses. The phrase "non-religious" is clearly only being used to try to corner CPCs as "religious".
-I have come across CPCs operated by many entities, some by state universities from states that could not at all be described as pro-life. - Schrandit (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
To characterize POCs as medical but CPCs as non-medical is unfair, perhaps describe neither as such? - "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes, something is true." Removing information is not the answer.
frankly, I can find little information about POCs at all, I suspect there are very few that are not fronts for abortion businesses. The phrase "non-religious" is clearly only being used to try to corner CPCs as "religious". - Firstly, I suspect that the dearth of information is partly because "pregnancy options counseling" doesn't appear to be a totalized "brand name" the way CPC is. (A bunch of CPCs label themselves "pregnancy options counseling," too.) Secondly, CPCs are blatantly religious, while pregnancy options counseling is generally not. If you don't want Wikipedia to contain this information, change the behavior of CPCs rather than trying to suppress information. And thirdly, a number of reliable institutions have published guidelines on pregnancy options counseling. Sorry.
I have come across CPCs operated by many entities, some by state universities from states that could not at all be described as pro-life. - Really? Because a Google search of crisis pregnancy center state university gets no relevant hits. Roscelese (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
What is it that makes POCs medical that does not make CPCs medical?
"CPCs are blatantly religious" says who?
here is a CPC paid for by the state of Illinois (not exactly a pro-life bastion). - Schrandit (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
What is it that makes POCs medical that does not make CPCs medical? - Just for starters, the fact that they disseminate false information about the medical risks of abortion? - claiming that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer (a claim rejected by the world's major medical bodies), whipping up this "post-abortion syndrome" falsehood, inflating the risk of complications relative to any other surgical procedure? and that they also give out false information about birth control?
"CPCs are blatantly religious" says who? Try CareNet and Heartbeat Int'l. You know, CPCs themselves.
here is a CPC paid for by the state of Illinois (not exactly a pro-life bastion). - Fair enough. Now you can try to find a way to rephrase the sentence that isn't WP:UNDUE. Roscelese (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You have a sources that mentions that all CPCs do this and that no POCs downplay the risks of abortion?
Those are two. Are are other, the state of Illinois for instance, blatantly religious?
I'm not trying to include that sentence, I'm proving that the current opener is in error. - Schrandit (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You'd need a citation to prove that POC downplays the risk of abortion; I don't need a cite to prove it doesn't. I very much doubt that you could provide a source about a CPC that doesn't mislead clients, whereas ample sources attest to CPCs that do.
It would be wrong to say they're all religious, of course, but as I pointed out above, it's a violation of undue to pretend that they're predominantly secular. So, like I said: you're welcome to suggest a change to the opener that you say is in error, just be careful that it's consistent with the guidelines. Hope that helps. Roscelese (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I can't find a single POC, I think they're a buzzword for abortion counseling. It is as impossible to disprove anything about them as it is to prove anything about the.
Do you have a source to say they are predominately religious? - Schrandit (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, because I haven't been able to find many POCs either - they don't seem to be largely distinguishable from medical counseling. (Wiley Science has a few hits on doctors training to give pregnancy options counseling.) As I already said, it doesn't appear to be a brand name like CPC, so your "HA HA it's ABORTION COUNSELING" is falling a bit flat - as "abortion counseling" is non-directive. Roscelese (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have sources that say CareNet, Heartbeat International, and Birthright are the largest sponsors of CPCs in the United States, and their own admission that they're religious. I have more sources stating that smaller CPCs are run by churches and other religious organizations. To avoid original synthesis, there could be a whole paragraph about CPCs' religious affiliations. That would probably be useful. Roscelese (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
If you think such a paragraph would be helpful, please do. - Schrandit (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Sweet! I'll get to that soon (making a few changes to the lead - it will say that they are usually religious, but I will make the section and internal-link it from the header ASAP. Only it's late here and I've got to sleep, but I'm on it.) Roscelese (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You have never given a source saying the majority of CPCs are Christian to any degree and I have proven unequivocally that not all CPCs are run by pro-lifers. - Schrandit (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't done that at all. "Paid for by the state of Illinois" =/= "run by government employees." You obviously know that, so why are you pretending they're the same thing?
I felt like the connotations of "religious" and "Christian" were different - "Christian" doesn't to me imply "evangelistic" - but I'll let the paragraph on religion explain that.
I'm taking out the bit about its distinctness from pregnancy options counseling/abortion counseling, because the terminology is quite confusing (since "pregnancy options counseling" is used for the kind you get at PP from a social worker, the kind you get from a doctor, and sometimes the kind you get at a CPC!!) If I can rework it, I'll add it back at a later date. Roscelese (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Even Henry Waxman in his absurd report conceded that CPCs are not all run by pro-lifers. - Schrandit (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
All right, then let's use Waxman's "virtually always" instead of your minimizing "often."
Please stop suppressing information about CPCs' religious affiliation. Over three-quarters of American CPCs (the three-quarters affiliated with Care Net or Heartbeat, plus the ones run by the RCC and by other church groups, cf the references I already cited) is not "sometimes" Christian and it is not a majority merely of "religiously oriented" CPCs. It is "typically Christian" and a vast majority of CPCs in general. Roscelese (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I read that article too. It said they are affiliated and did not speak to the nature of said affiliation. It is unreasonable to make assumptions. - Schrandit (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Then it's too bad that Care Net and Heartbeat are self-declared Christian organizations, isn't it? That Heartbeat describes its affiliates as "faith-based pregnancy resource centers"? That Care Net requires not only all affiliated centers but all affiliated center employees to comply with their statement of faith? The only assumption being made here is your assumption that I'm just going to take your word for it as to what the sources say.
I'm really fed up with this. If you have a source that contradicts the multiplicity of sources I've provided, use it. If you don't, stop vandalizing the article. Roscelese (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You've included many references but you either didn't read them all or are intentionally misreporting what they say. The Waxman report was not a "government report" it was the work of Democratic House staffers and should be prefaced as such. You did find a source (though you have not included it) that says that Carenet requires its affiliates to sign thier pledge of Faith. To take that and run with it until you get "the vast majority of CPCs are Christian" is borderline irresponsible. - Schrandit (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As a Thanksgiving favor, I'll play along and use a different source. How about that? It still says they're run by "pro-life" supporters. Fancy that. Happy Thanksgiving!
I'm not going to re-hash the Christianity thing. I've provided the sources, they are reliable, and you have no sources to contradict them. This is the last time I am going to revert your vandalism before reporting you. Roscelese (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Your sources are reliable but they don't verify that text you have inserted. I'm not sure what you think you're going to "report" me for. - Schrandit (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

One sentence paragraphs

One sentence paragraphs are against the MoS, and just plain bad writing. Looks like a bunch have been introduced in the past month. Please work on copy editing to bring the article more in line with our style. -Andrew c [talk] 22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

CE'd. Did I catch everything? Roscelese (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Description of religious affiliation (RfC)

These three statements are in contention:

  • Should the lead say that CPCs are typically Christian in nature - or - often Christian in nature?
  • Although the vast majority of CPCs are Christian - or - Though the majority of religious CPCs are Christian?
  • Many require employees to comply with a statement of faith - or - Some require employees to comply with a statement of faith?

Schrandit argues that to comment about the prevalence of religious CPCs is original research, and advocates the latter phrasing; I argue that the sources fully support the former, and that:

  • since Care Net and Heartbeat International are self-declared Christian organizations, to read a source that says three-quarters of American CPCs affiliate with them and write "typically" and "majority" falls under the routine calculations rule and is exempt from OR. (Other sources point out that some CPCs are run by the Roman Catholic Church and by other church groups, and CPCs outside the USA also appear to be largely Christian, so if it's the specific numbers that you want to discuss, we could open a new section in talk about whether three-fourths constitutes a "vast" majority or not.)
  • if Care Net states that it is the largest CPC network in the USA, and that all its employees must comply with a statement of faith, it is not OR to say that "many" CPCs require employees to comply with a statement of faith.

-- Roscelese (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, also - we do actually have a source that says CPCs are "usually run by church groups," the source is already cited in the article, but I thought it was more nuanced and informational to make the mention in the lead an internal link to the section - thoughts? (Naturally this doesn't affect the latter two points.) Roscelese (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought this might fall under Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed. It is a very common notion that CPCs are run by pro-life, Christian organizations. Through the citations of other sources, and the research Roscelese put into this, I think citations have demonstrated this. I'm not sure what Schrandit's argument is here. That the very common notion is actually a misconception? That most CPCs aren't pro-life? That most CPC's are run by Christian parent organizations? We'd need clear sources making such a counter claim. Are there any sources presented that make anything close to this argument? To me, this seems like an individual user is trying to distance CPCs from certain common labels, without a proper justification. Typically vs. often isn't a big deal to me, but the other two examples, I favor the first option over the second. I wouldn't mind removing "vast", but don't support including "religious" as it seems like almost a circular statement, and we can make a stronger statement than that. This isn't a case of "we don't really know who are behind CPCs, so we should be vague and ambiguous". This is a case of 1) we have a clear common notion or stereotype. 2) basic research shows these common notions are true 3) there are no sources making any contrary claims regarding the religious affiliations of CPCs. Right? Am I missing something, or are there sources I have overlooked? -Andrew c [talk] 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to challenge those notions, only put them in the proper connotations - CPCs are by and large run by pro-lifers but are not universally so. CPCs are often affiliated with a religious organization, often an Evangelical one but not universally so.
This is the first time I'm seeing this. With that in mind I think it is fair to say (and worthwhile to do so) that most CPCs are affiliated with a Christian organization, but outside of Carenet the nature of that affiliation remains uncertain. I'd think the contested sentance fragment in the opening paragraph would be better if it read "run by pro-life supporters and are typically affiliated with a Christian organization."
I continue to believe the sentence "Although the vast majority of CPCs are Christian, a Jewish CPC, called "In Shifra's Arms," also exists." is inaccurate, I think something along the lines of "Though the majority of CPCs are affiliated with a Christian organization, a Jewish CPC, called "In Shifra's Arms," also exists."
I am very uncomfortable with the sentence "CPCs outside the United States are also largely Christian." The citations given only say that many CPCs in the UK are run by Christians and that come Canadian CPCs are affiliated with American Christians. This does not justify the stated text.
Of the sentence "Many, however, require employees to comply with a statement of faith." 1. - This only speaks to CPCs in the US 2. - This is maybe 30% of CPCs in the US. I think "Some in the US require employees to comply with a statement of faith." is more accurate. - Schrandit (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Instead of "some" or "many", why not we be specific and say "Carenet affiliated CPCs"? Are there others as well? If so, we'd need a citation, and then we can consider other language. But for something so specific in the citation, we should make the text reflect that. As for the clause prefacing the Jewish CPC line, I'd be ok with either one, so I don't think that is a big deal at this point, to me at least. Overall, I think you are stressing the but are not universally so part a bit too much. In terms of non-Christian CPCs, we have a single example, the one Jewish one, and that is all, correct? -Andrew c [talk] 22:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know that is the only religious CPC that is not Christian, my "but not universally so" language is primarily concerned with the CPCs that are not affiliated with any religious group, some of whom are administered by governments. - Schrandit (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, good call on the Carenet. - Schrandit (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit, Heartbeat says that it is a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers." I'll ask you the question I wondered about at the noticeboard: Do you think that those "faith-based pregnancy resource centers" are Muslim or Pagan? Or that Heartbeat is lying? It has to be one of the two.
We know about ~50 non-sectarian CPCs. We also know that over three-quarters of American CPCs (again, the country with the most CPCs) are religious. Even if you assume that every CPC we don't know about is non-sectarian, that still boils down to "typically Christian."
CareConfidential is (to all appearances, though the statement in the article is unsourced) the largest CPC network in the UK. Other CPCs appear either to be affiliated with Lifecharity (which, though I can't find a statement of faith, administers only one-third of the CPCs that CareConfidential does anyway), or to be run by churches or otherwise religious. This is all I have from my sources. If you have a source that supports the existence of a preponderance of secular CPCs in the UK, please provide it. If you don't, stop asking us to assume based on absolutely no evidence. Likewise Canada - if you can prove that most Canadian CPCs are both unaffiliated with the aforementioned Christian umbrella network and that they are not otherwise religious, go ahead and make those changes. (I have a source that opposes CPCs that says there are 200 in Canada; CAPSS apparently administers 71, but every other source I could find that commented on a Canadian CPC's religious affiliation said that it was Christian.)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crisis_pregnancy_center&action=edit
You're essentially asking us to assume that if we don't know that a CPC is religious, it must be secular. But that's bad math and bad policy. The sources we have - and I'll ask for the fifth or sixth time, if you have any other sources, please, show them to us - say that a preponderance of CPCs are Christian.
And finally, the largest CPC network in the United States is not a small number however you spin it, and CAPSS also makes affiliates comply with a statement of faith. I've added that. Roscelese (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
We know that around 3/4s of CPCs in the US are affiliated with a Christian organization. The exact nature of this relationship remains vague. To state that they are affiliated is precise, exact and accurate. To state that they are "Christian in nature" has an unknown meaning and depending on what it means to the reader, untrue.
If you were to state that most CPCs in the UK are affiliated with a Christian organization I wouldn't have objected, but you altered the text to read that most CPCs outside the United States are Christian. That is both vague and unproven.
I'm not asking you to state that CPCs operate along a secular philosophy unless they can be proven to operate along a Christian philosophy, I'm asking you to refrain from stating that CPCs operate along a Christian philosophy unless our sources state that they do. - Schrandit (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit, I've already pointed out that Care Net requires all affiliates to comply with a statement of faith and that Heartbeat describes its affiliates as "faith-based." Unless you have a source that claims that Care Net's affiliates and Heartbeat's website are lying, then sources indicate that the centers are Christian and no amount of obfuscation will change that.
Likewise, adding up all the CPCs in the world, religious or not, would probably still not outweigh the number of religious CPCs in the US. I am therefore reverting your edit about "a majority of CPCs in the US," because this is a juvenile attempt to pretend that the statement is not true of a majority of CPCs in general.
And finally, could you please point to a policy whereby editors are directed to ignore evidence based merely on the say-so of another editor? The source states that CareConfidential runs "Christian-based pregnancy crisis centres." Do you have any source that discredits this one? Or are we meant to just take your word for it that the BBC is not telling the truth? Roscelese (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Where did I say that the BBC was not telling the truth? - Schrandit (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If you were to state that most CPCs in the UK are affiliated with a Christian organization I wouldn't have objected - when they are, in fact, "Christian-based pregnancy centres" per the BBC.
As for Canada, as I've said many times, any evidence you have would be appreciated. But your conjecture that all the Canadian CPCs we don't know about are secular does not belong in the article, when every source we have refers to Christian ones. Roscelese (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll say it again because you either didn't understand it or chose to ignore it. My objection is that you took a source that describes CPCS in the UK and Canada and used it to source a sentence that describes CPCs world-wide. That is unacceptable. - Schrandit (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If there are individual countries that have more secular CPCs than religious ones, you're free to provide a source that says so (though, again, remembering not to violate WP:UNDUE). But it doesn't really matter how much you keep moving the goalposts or which new countries you bring up, because it's a simple question of math. If the UK has 150+ Christian CPCs and 50 secular ones, and Canada has 71 Christian CPCs and 130 unknown-but-definitely-not-all-secular ones, five (hypothetically) secular CPCs from France aren't going to balance that out. Especially not when you add in the other Christian CPCs abroad.
Go ahead, look through Heartbeat's directory. Find a majority of secular CPCs. It'll be a fun way to spend the evening. Roscelese (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No. - Schrandit (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hence my providing sources. I'll source the directory; it's not comprehensive, but it's the best source we have. As I said, it doesn't state outright that most centers are "Christian," but calculation is exempt from OR and enough centers in the directory are "Christian" to continue tipping the balance in that direction. I am reverting your vandalism; we've discussed all these changes, and you know quite well that you've no evidential support for any of yours.
I have a feeling, though, that - in spite of the fact that probably no source is even necessary - no source I can cite will make you stop removing information from this article. Isn't that why you're removing information about American CPCs after it's been more than adequately established that that information is indisputably true? I'm wondering the same thing as Andrew - What the hell is your agenda here? Why are you trying to make people believe that CPCs aren't "Christian"?Roscelese (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we just need to follow the sources in cases of disputes. Don't read more into the sources. Don't say something applies to all CPCs or all countries, if it only lists one or two. Don't imply that certain CPCs are secluar or not Christian, when no sources say that. While you are welcome to assume that the % of CPCs in the minority that fall outside of CareNet and Heartbeat are not Christian, we can't say or imply that without sources doing so. -Andrew c [talk] 16:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's not appropriate, then, to go with Heartbeat's directory as a source for CPCs abroad? I looked through it, and while there are some that don't state a religious affiliation, there are also loads that are affiliated with Heartbeat, run by the RCC, or otherwise stated to be religious. With the predominance of religious CPCs in the UK and the large number in Canada, that does balance out to a predominance of religious CPCs even if some individual countries have predominantly secular CPCs, just because of the way the numbers work - 75% of CPCs being religious in a country with 200 CPCs is still more than 100% of CPCs being secular in a country with 7. (As I said to Schrandit, perhaps individual countries may have more secular CPCs than religious, and we could totally get into that - it would be really interesting to see if the "pro-life" movement in laïciste France is more religious or more secular. But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of CPCs are religious). Roscelese (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No. You can't just assume something is true until it has been proven false. What is wrong with just providing the information listed in our sources? - Schrandit (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I'm not "assuming something is true until it has been proven false," I'm saying that our sources tell us about CPCs that are mostly Christian. Your "There might be secular CPCs somewhere, you never know!" is not a source on par with the sources we have. Roscelese (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Roscelese, I think Schrandit has a point here: we need to just get the facts from reliable sources, not try to infer what's not really stated. Dylan Flaherty 03:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Schrandit and Dylan Flaherty. Cloonmore (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, then I'll find a way of phrasing the intro to that paragraph that will hopefully suit you. While you're both here, care to comment on Schrandit's repeated change of "Christian" to "affiliated with a Christian organization," which, as I pointed out elsewhere, is a deliberate misrepresentation of the sources? Roscelese (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You have a tendency to write sarcastic summations of arguments and them ascribe them mine. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that in the future.
The conversation seems to be meandering in a few different directions, I'm going to try to segment it into specific threads, any one feel free to add another that you feel is worthy of discussion. - Schrandit (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Christian" v. "affiliated with a Christian organization"

Describing a center (any sort of center) as "Christian" can be problematic. If a center (or any sort of a charity) is administered by or is a ministry of a particular Church that is pretty straight forward but CPCs run a huge gambit, some are connected to Churches, others are not, some desire Christian volunteers, others do not, some evangelize, others do not. There are non-Christians working at Christian centers, there are Christians working at non-Christan centers. To describe swaths of non-profits as "Christian" is non-specific and, depending on the definition being operated under, untrue. Conversely, to describe them as "affiliated with a Christian organization" is specific, direct, true and can be expanded upon. - Schrandit (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* We have reliable sources that say that over 75% of CPCs in the United States (once again, the country with by far the most CPCs) are indisputably Christian. We have more reliable sources saying a large number outside the US are indisputably Christian as well. It's not your job to contest the statement that an organization is a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy centers" or runs "Christian-based pregnancy crisis centres." You are not the arbiter of who is and is not Christian enough.
If you have a source that indicates that any of these centers are actually lying about their affiliates or affiliation policies, please, share it. If you have a source that indicates that the BBC is lying about CareConfidential's religious nature or that Time is lying about the number of centers affiliated with Care Net and Heartbeat, please, share it. Until then, the changes you're suggesting are a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the sources. Roscelese (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit's suggested wording seems to me completely unremarkable and more accurate. "Christian" as a stand-alone modifier connotes that the primary or significant purpose of a center is to proselytize or evangelize. I don't see any evidence that that's the purpose of these centers (thought it may be true of some), but it is no doubt true that many of the founders and volunteers are animated by their personal Christian zeal and beliefs and that many/most of the centers have some kind of affiliation with a Christian church, organization or mission. Therefore, describing the centers as "affiliated with a Christian organization" is more accurate and less prone to confusing or misleading the reader. Cloonmore (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It may seem to you that that's the implication, but Wikipedia appears to be have no problem calling self-described and reliably described "Christian" (etc) organizations by that name. Is Human Life International not really Roman Catholic, then? Is Focus on the Family not Christian enough because their primary purpose isn't to evangelize? How about Hadassah - are you going to tell 270,000 women that their organization isn't really Jewish?
Please point to a consensus that indicates that it's right to discard all the sources. Otherwise, please explain why your personal opinion trumps both sources and policy. Roscelese (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Catholic organizations are easier to classify because there is usually the Catholic Directory or the USCCB to settle the matter. Thus, for example, notwithstanding its name, Catholics for Choice is not a Catholic organization. Anyway, you appear to be changing the subject. We're not talking about Hadassah but about CPCs. I don't understand the objection to "affiliated with a Christian organization." And I haven't suggested that sources be discarded, so that seems a red herring. Cloonmore (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So, Focus on the Family? Not Christian enough?
When you say "All these sources describe the organizations as Christian, but I don't think they're Christian, so let's not call them Christian," you are discarding the sources.
My objection to "affiliated with a Christian organization" is that that's not what the sources say. They say the centers are "Christian." To say otherwise, without other sources to back up your statement, is to misrepresent the sources we have in what I think is a purposeful attempt to make users believe that CPCs are something that they are not (ie. secular).
You haven't answered my question - why is your personal opinion supposed to be authoritative here? Roscelese (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Would you please knock it off with the straw men?
The definition of "Christian" is unfixed and it unclear what is meant by it, and what can be inferred by it. Are they Christian like Billy Graham or Christian like the Salvation Army or Christian like the nation of Hungary? Specificity is always preferable I see no margin in leaving this open-ended. - Schrandit (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that we have sources that say they're Christian means that we don't need to pontificate about what "Christian" means. Why do you want to ignore the sources?
Your point, in addition to being completely against standing policy, is specious in its own right. All it does is remove the controversy one level back: what are these "Christian" organizations they're affiliated with? Are they Christian like Billy Graham or Christian like the Salvation Army or Christian like the nation of Hungary? No, how about we just go with what the sources tell us instead of individual editors' hand-wringing about the true meaning of Christianity? Roscelese (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
"we don't need to pontificate about what "Christian" means." Aren't you the editor that just launched this community into a week and a half of pontification over what "Pro-life" means?
I'd love noting more to that to quote our sources, to be more specific. - Schrandit (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
No, as far as I know, no editor has done that. I did raise a discussion on whether we can describe a law (not a person, who can self-identify) with a blatantly non-neutral term, though. I seem to recall that back then, you were on the side of allowing anything and everything, even things that can't actually do so, to "self-identify." How far away that seems now, when you reject the descriptions provided not only by reliable third-party sources (which you, on the other hand, could not provide in the "pro-life" discussion) but by the organizations themselves! I guess a week and a half is a long time.
The sources are already quoted in the body of the article. Has it been a while since you read it? Because that would imply that you've been reverting my edits without looking at them, which would really be rude. Maybe you should look at the article and refresh your memory. Roscelese (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you're just going to insult folks then there isn't a point in keeping this up. I've got a consensus on my side (though a slim one) and I'm moving on with it. Let me know if you find anything else (a new source, a precedent somewhere else) that you think would change folks' minds or if you are particularly aggrieved by this and I'll let you know about the channels for recourse. - Schrandit (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
You most certainly have not. Even if you had an overwhelming majority vote, which you don't, if everyone in that majority had arguments like "we should discard all sources because they don't agree with me as to what Christianity is" and "what is Christianity? we just don't know," that would be a clear contravention of existing practice and existing policy and would probably be contested if there was any oversight. Consensus needs to take arguments into account. (If you follow AfD, as I do, you'll notice that articles sometimes get deleted when the vote to delete is the minority one, because the arguments the majority voters provided showed ignorance of standing policy.)
I'm opening another RfC to get a broader range of opinion (ie. more than three people, because that is not consensus) for this specific issue. I think it's ridiculous, frankly, to open an RfC to ask, essentially, "Is Wikipedia ever allowed to use the word 'Christian'," but hey, I'm not the one arguing that we're not. I'll also invite Andrew C and Dylan Flaherty back. Roscelese (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This one is simple: Of course they're Christian. We have reliable sources stating that the overwhelming majority are explicitly Christian. This is not unsourced or in any way controversial. The centers self-identify as Christian and/or are affiliated/staffed/funded by Christian churches. Some of the larger ones require their staff to sign a statement of faith in which they swear that they are Christian.

Why are we even discussing this? They're Christian. Dylan Flaherty 01:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Medical services"

That phrase has never set well with me. Does advice of a medical nature constitute a medical service? Could we shift to something like "The majority of CPCs do not conduct medical operations"? - Schrandit (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the "medical services" some offer appear to be STD testing and pregnancy tests, "medical services" is probably better than "medical operations." "Operation" has a connotation in the medical context that isn't at all what we're talking about, and if you take it in the general sense, I'm not sure how it differs from "services." Is there another phrasing that you think might be better? Roscelese (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Surely STD testing is a medical service? - Schrandit (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the gist was that most don't offer that, no? Roscelese (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll hunt around for a source, I was under the impression that most of them provide pregnancy testing etc. - Schrandit (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Description of religious affiliation, take 2 (RfC)

Should we describe CPCs as typically Christian or typically affiliated with a Christian organization?

Cloonmore argues that an organization that does not have proselytism as a primary or otherwise significant goal cannot be named as "Christian." Schrandit argues that the term "Christian" is too vague and open-ended to use to describe these organizations.

I (Roscelese) argue that the sources, both first-party and third-party, call the centers "Christian" and that to say otherwise is to misrepresent them.

-- Roscelese (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your RfC is improper as it violates the fundamental principle of neutrality. I did not argue that "an organization that does not have proselytism as a primary or otherwise significant goal cannot be named as 'Christian.'" You've reaffirmed your penchant for straw men. Cloonmore (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide what you feel is a more accurate description of your position? Since you said "'Christian' as a stand-alone modifier connotes that the primary or significant purpose of a center is to proselytize or evangelize," it really seemed like you meant that "Christian" as a stand-alone modifier connotes that the primary or significant purpose of a center is to proselytize or evangelize. Forgive me if you were using coded language that I didn't understand. Roscelese (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
For the reasons explained above, I support "typically Christian", or even "primarily Christian". Dylan Flaherty 01:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
What are your sources? You mention them frequently but in scrolling through the lengthy posts above, I can't quite tell. For example, while Heartbeat International plainly appears to be a Christian organization, I don't see anything in its affiliations standards that indicates that its CPC affiliates are uniformly Christian. Cloonmore (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You need to read your own sources better. The site you linked to lists Heartbeat International as a "Christian, interdenominational association", and the directory page says, "Connect with 4,500+ pro-life services ministries worldwide". Note the word "ministries". I'm not sure what else there is to talk about. Dylan Flaherty 04:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, but you need to read my comments better. I acknowledged that Heartbeat Intl appears to be a Christian organization. Is it your contention that any CPC that affiliates with Heartbeat is, therefore, de facto, a "Christian organization"? Where's the support? You're not basing that assertion on the use of the word '"ministries" in the HBI directory, are you? Because, as your careful reading no doubt revealed to you, the majority of the CPC's listed in directory are not affiliates of HBI. Further, HBI's affiliate application does not require or even presume that an affiliate is Christian. Cloonmore (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it lists even the CPC's that aren't affiliates among the "ministries"; I think you'll agree that a ministry is inherently religious. Not only is HBI Christian, but as I pointed out, it's a "Christian, interdenominational association", which means that its mission is to link Christians together regardless of (Christian) denomination. If a completely secular pro-life organization became affiliated with HBI, it would no longer be completely secular. Dylan Flaherty 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, as I pointed out, the majority of the CPCs listed are not affiliates of HBI. So how can the directory be any basis for asserting the supposedly "Christian" nature of those listed CPCs? And, no, I would not agree that because HBI appears to call all CPCs "ministries," whether HBI affiliates or not, that that proves that all CPCs are "Christian." And I don't see any support for your conclusions about HBI's "mission." Cloonmore (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it lists even the CPC's that aren't affiliates among the "ministries"; I think you'll agree that a ministry is inherently religious. Not only is HBI Christian, but as I pointed out, it's a "Christian, interdenominational association", which means that its mission is to link Christians together regardless of (Christian) denomination. If a completely secular pro-life organization became affiliated with HBI, it would no longer be completely secular. Dylan Flaherty 18:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you a bot? Cloonmore (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm making a WP:POINT by repeating my point, as you did not address it. Dylan Flaherty 18:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't cut and paste your own comment. You're not making a point; your wasting people's time. Anyway, I did indeed address your point. It has no support. Cloonmore (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Since you have not addressed my point (either time), it stands. Dylan Flaherty 20:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
That's correct. Your statements that (1) HBI's "mission is to link Christians together regardless of (Christian) denomination", and (2) "If a completely secular pro-life organization became affiliated with HBI, it would no longer be completely secular" stand. They stand as unsupported statements of opinion, FWIW. They're also irrelevant to the RfC, since no one disputes that an affiliate of HBI -- whether "secular" or not -- would by definition be "affiliated with a Christian organization." Cloonmore (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept this as a compromise. Dylan Flaherty 02:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside of the box thought - Religious affiliation/connection doesn't seem to be a huge deal. How about we don't a fuss of it in the opening and just quote different secondary sources in the body to describe them? - Schrandit (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you like, you can open an RfC to see what people think of that proposal. I think it's relevant for the lead. Roscelese (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "typically" is misleading and prone to confusing the reader. In fact, in the place where abortion is most prevalent in the USA -- New York City, the undisputed abortion capital of America -- Christian affiliation is not typical. The vast majority of CPCs in the city are run by EMC Frontline, which is not affiliated with any church. Cloonmore (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Chris Slattery, founder of EMC Frontline, is a member of Christian Professionals Worldwide and Christian Business Leaders Network. The organization's 40 Days for Life campaign involved prayer vigils outside of abortion clinics. Slattery calls modern-day pregnancy clinics "ministries". Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
That's probably worth noting in the article, but it still wouldn't justify calling those CPCs "Christian". What do y'all think about removing it from the lead and just dealing with it in depth in the body? - Schrandit (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Slattery's membership in Christian Professionals Worldwide or Christian Business Leaders Network tells us nothing about EMC. No doubt they're both good fundraising networks. (Would a WalMart executive's membership in the CBLN make WalMart "Christian"?) Agree that "ministry" has a religious connotation, but not necessarily and not exclusively Christian. HBI likewise refers to all CPCs in its directory as "ministries," whether affiliated or not. (And, again, see HBI's affiliate application, which specifically asks whether the applicant considers itself a Christian ministry, thus demonstrating that some applicants/affiliates do not.) EMC's 40 Days for Life campaign is obviously a way to mobilize supporters. It does not justify designating EMC Frontline "Christian." Agree that addressing the issue in the body makes sense. There are way too many variations to reduce the Christian aspects of many CPC's to a single sentence with ambiguous modifiers like "typically Christian." Cloonmore (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Come on now, Cloonmore. You're grasping at straws here. 1. The number of abortion providers in NYC is irrelevant because it is not the same thing as the number of CPCs in NYC 2. We already have proof that most CPCs are Christian, and this doesn't contradict it at all. Even if you assume that EMC Frontline is totally and completely secular, which would appear to be a wrong assumption because the centers are "ministries," that still wouldn't contraindicate the use of "typically Christian" because EMC is not in charge of a majority of CPCs.
I'm not sure why you keep pulling out this thing about HBI calling all the centers in its directory "ministries." That would seem to subvert your point rather than enforce it, unless you for some reason think that an organization must be affiliated with HBI in order to be Christian. Anyway, Heartbeat describes its centers as ministries and as faith-based organizations, and unless you can prove that there's some substantial Jewish or Muslim presence (good luck - Shifra's was the only Jewish one I found, and I couldn't find any Muslim ones) then we have to take the source's word for it that they're Christian, because they say they're a Christian association.
Could you point to a standard that indicates that "ministry" is typically used without reference to Christianity? Because I'm Jewish, and we sure don't call our projects ministries. Roscelese (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Roscelese, you're right that a Jewish organization is unlikely to use the term "ministry", but it's not at all unlikely for a Christian interdenominational organization, such as HBI, to use that term in reference to a Jewish organization. I'm sure no insult was intended. It's just that, as you pointed out, the overwhelming majority of CBC's are admittedly (Christian) ministries. Dylan Flaherty 21:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Roscelese, I'd say that pointing to Chris Slattery's membership in the Christian Business Leaders Network as proof that EMC is "Christian" is the very definition of straw-grasping. As Dylan Flaherty suggests, Christians will call most anything that involves service to others a "ministry," including Jews ministering to fellow Jews. I'm not sure what you mean by requesting a "standard," but it is an exceedingly common phenomenon for Catholics and Protestants to label anything from Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon to blood drives and Girl Scouts to bingo (!!!) as a "ministry." I suspect you'd agree that AA and Girl Scouts aren't "Christian" organizations simply by virtue of the fact that they're viewed as ministries of many Christian communities.
You say that you "already have proof that most CPCs are Christian." I've already asked for that proof, and I ask again because maybe I've missed it amidst the glut of imprecise use of terms and language in these comments. Thanks. Cloonmore (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I already directed you to the sources in the article. Care Net makes every employee of every affiliate comply with a statement that swears they are Christian, Heartbeat states that it is a "Christian association of faith-based crisis pregnancy centers," and these two together administer three-quarters of CPCs in the United States (the country with by far the most CPCs). The largest network in the UK also runs "Christian-based pregnancy crisis centres." The largest network in Canada also makes affiliates comply with a statement of faith. What appears to be the largest network in Latin America states that it complies with Catholic teaching. Other unaffiliated CPCs all over the world are run by church groups.
Are you trying to make some point about Heartbeat's affiliates being secular? Then find a source that indicates that Heartbeat is not telling the truth when it describes the centers as "faith-based."
Yours and Dylan's point about Christian organizations describing everything as a ministry is well-taken, but, as I said above, it's a tangent because, even if EMC Frontline is completely secular, the numbers still say that most CPCs are Christian. (Al-Anon was a poor choice of example for a secular "ministry" on your part. Have you ever taken a look at the 12-step program? But this, like this entire EMC Frontline tangent, is irrelevant. Let's focus on what we know - that, until you provide sources that say the contrary, all our information indicates that these centers are predominantly Christian.) Roscelese (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad that you now agree that the "ministry" argument is a red herring, Roscalese. As for your sources, let's start with the good ol' US of A. I agree that CareNet affiliates, which are required to affirm CareNet's Statement of Faith, can fairly be described as Christian. I see no such evidence as to Heartbeat Int'l or Birthright affiliates. Cloonmore (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Heartbeat describes itself as a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers." Unless you're arguing that these "faith-based" organizations are predominantly Jewish, or that Heartbeat is lying about their being faith-based? Roscelese (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not arguing anything about the nature of "faith" at the moment. I'm asking for the sources for your "Christian" assertion, and I don't see any that state that all HBI affiliates are Christian. HBI does not appear to require an affirmation of faith, as does CareNet, and HBI's affiliate application strongly implies that not all its affiliates are Christian ministries. You'd have to agree that its affiliates are certainly not "Christian" in the sense that CareNet mandates. Cloonmore (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The source I keep referring to is Heartbeat's "About Us," already cited in the article. Did you actually read the article? They describe themselves as a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers" whose materials are "consistent with Biblical principles." Obviously they're not exactly the same as Care Net, because Care Net is specifically evangelical and Heartbeat is interdenominational, but they describe themselves as Christian and faith-based. I don't think there's really anything to question in the wording there - you'd need to provide a source that states that this affirmation is actually false. Roscelese (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't think Christian organizations would refer to secular organizations as ministries. However, we may well use this typically Christian term to refer to non-Christian but non-secular equivalents of ministries. The example above is that single Jewish CPC you found. Regardless, it's very clear that the overwhelming majority of CPC's are just plain Christian. I see no shame in this and can't imagine why anyone would want to make this any less clear. Dylan Flaherty 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The only CPC I've had any close involvement in was run by a Catholic church I attended some years ago, so I realize that my own experiences are perhaps biased. That's why I decided to do some basic research. Within a minute or two, I found the EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers Internship site, which includes these words:

Abortion starts with a lack of understanding the true purpose of sex. Until the world realizes the true beauty of God's perfect plan for marriage, we will have clients much like these girls coming to our centers or worse going to Emily's. And so we work...to save lives, to change the world...
We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

Beautiful and true, but hardly secular. It occurred me, as no doubt it occurs to you now, that this might just be one person's view, taken out of context, so I changed my search to include Slattery. The first thing that showed up was an essay in which he said:

The institution of pro-life pregnancy centers is the fruit of a movement that has existed for many years. In the United States, such establishments go far back through Christian ministries such as Catholic hospitals and Christian maternity homes. What Time believes it recently uncovered as a new angle to pro-life activism has been in widespread practice for some 200 years.
In fact, today's centers are a scaled-down version of the original Catholic-Protestant outreaches that began in the mid 1800s. Catholic hospitals, the Salvation Army, the Christian Aid Society and many early adoption agencies provided similar, though antiquated, services to what current pregnancy resource centers do. But today's ministries are much more decentralized and more specialized than those of old.

Note how he speaks of "today's ministries", not "today's secular, non-profit organizations". In his own words, CPC's are Christian ministries, not secular at all. Again, this does not seem to be the least bit ambiguous. CPC's are Christian ministries, except for the few that Jewish ministries or Muslim ministries. Dylan Flaherty 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  • RfC comment - The sources seem to most clearly indicate that CPC are "associated with Christian ministries," and it seems fairly clear that that means, in context, pro-life Christian ministries. On that basis, I think saying that they are associated with pro-life Christian ministries is probably the best available alternative. Having said that, if there are numerous ministries involved which are clearly not Christian, but perhaps Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever, then it would probably make sense to have the text say that the CPCs are associated with a number of pro-life religious ministries. It does seem that the organization itself is a self-described Christian group, so perhaps saying that it is a Christian organization which seeks to link and support other pro-life ministries might be the best option. That would avoid dealing with whether all the other affiliates are necessarily Christian. Unless all of these organizations are clearly related directly to Christianity in some way, and they may not be, I think it would perhaps be best to avoid making any statements about their own affiliation, aside from the fact that they are all, apparently, pro-life to some extent. So what do we think of saying the umbrella organization is a Christian organization which seeks to promote the pro-life agenda, and (maybe) that the bulk of the affiliated organizations are apparently fairly clearly promoting pro-life in a way conducive to the general Christian viewpoint? John Carter (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you might be getting a bit confused? We're not just talking about EMC Frontline here - that might be a relevant discussion if we were discussing an article on EMC Frontline, but as it is, that's a tangent that Cloonmore brought up which does not change the fact that all the sources we have indicate that most CPCs are "Christian." Not just "affiliated" or "associated." Roscelese (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
That's entirely correct. Moreover, it's not that they're "pro-life to some extent", they're just plain pro-life. We need less weaseling and more plain-speaking. CPC's are Christian, pro-life ministries. Dylan Flaherty 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think John Carter's comment reflect any confusion. His suggestion of an alternate phrasing, "associated with Christian ministries" is an admirable attempt to propose something that might be satisfactory to all. Cloonmore (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That's no compromise between what we're advocating and what you're advocating, it's just another phrasing of what you're advocating - and, like the original phrasing of what you're advocating, is a misrepresentation of all the sources.
I suggested that John Carter might be confused because he's referring repeatedly to one umbrella organization, whereas we know there are several - which made me think he might be referring only to EMC Frontline. Roscelese (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what John meant, but our sources are clear on this matter. CPC's are Christian. Dylan Flaherty 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, what do you mean when you say "CPC's are Christian"? - Schrandit (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Dylan Flaherty means, but I mean "they describe themselves as Christian, third-party sources describe them as Christian, they require all their staff to be Christian, they proselytize Christianity, and/or their information is Bible-based." What more are you looking for? Roscelese (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree that I'm not at all clear what Dylan means. Three organizations are listed in the lede, which is, honestly, way to short. Of those three, the first two are self-described as Christian - [Birthright International]], at least according to the existing stub we have on it, makes no direct reference to itself as a specifically Christian connection.
It would help a lot if this RfC were a bit clearer regarding the details of the proposal. Right now, I see the existing sentence in the lead about the Christian nature of these organizations, with the "by and large" quotation and citation, as being maybe the point of contention. I have to say that, unless a clear and specific linkage of Birthright International to Christianity is established, that the existing sentence should be changed, until and unless Birthright is clearly established as clearly Christian. In this sense, I suppose we would be looking for an indication that the organization is organized by Christians to promote a specifically Christian pro-life agenda.
If the point of contention is the lead, I would think that expanding it, perhaps to say something like (X) of the early CPCs were established by Christian organizations to promote a Christian pro-life agenda, and that subsequently some other organizations, perhaps like Birthright International, have been established to promote the pro-life agenda without having a necessarily Christian motivation. I would be specifically interested whether it can be verified that Birthright International requires that all of its staff be Christians and that all of its affiliated organizations prosletyze and have Bible-based information. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
John, thank you for participating in this discussion. All too often, controversy scares away editors and leaves only the few and impassioned, who are then permanently at loggerheads.
I think that expanding the lead is a good idea, on the whole. Sometimes it's hard to be neutral while also being very brief. The real issue is content.
Let me clarify my statement about Christianity: CPC's are Christian ministries, staffed by Christians who follow the traditional Christian belief in the immorality of abortion, and supported financially by Christian churches. The two largest organizations are explicitly Christian, with one requiring participants to sign an oath of faith. According to one study, almost all CPC's mention religion and many cite religious passages. Another article says "Most of the 2,300 CPCs in the country operate under three umbrella groups: Care Net, Heartbeat International and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA)." The first two are, as discussed, Christian. A quick google confirms that the third is headed by the former President of Care Net, which used to be called Christian Action Counsel.
Nobody denies that there are a some CPC's that are relatively secular (in terms of the organization, that is, not the staff), but I don't believe anyone can credibly deny that these are exceptional. There are even a very few that are religious but not Christian. Our reliable sources confirm this and no original research on our part is needed. We can argue over whether CPC's are 99% Christian or only 95%, and the actual figure will depend (as you suggested) on how we define the criteria. However, no matter how we slice it, the is no question about CPC's being Christian; none whatsoever.
It is not a secret, open or otherwise, that the overwhelming majority of CPC's are Christian and I have no idea why anyone would want to downplay or conceal this. If anything, we should be proud of our willingness to reach out to those in need instead of simply pushing for criminalization. If I take this a little personally, it may be because I contributed to a CPC through my church, and the center made no attempt to hide this affiliation. Dylan Flaherty 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If there are sources which are reliable as per WP:RS that give a definite percentage, or a minimum percentage, of how many of these centers are explicitly Christian in some sense, I can't see any objections to using the numbers they give. However, we really do, in general, try to avoid generalities if we have any sort of more concrete material to deal with. NIFLA is not currently mentioned in the lede (I think), and I don't think there are any objections to having the lede changed if the sources indicate it should be. And I don't have any problems with a Christian wanting the Christianity of the majority of the centers to be made clear. The problem is in using non-specific language if more specific language is available. Right now, I don't see exactly what material in the article as it currently exists that this RfC is supposed to address in some way, which is why I mentioned the lede. If some other sections are more centrally being considered, it would be helpful to know which. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doing basic math on data from reliable sources doesn't constitute original research. If so, it is trivial to show that the majority of CPC's are, by one definition or another, Christian. If we can get over 2/3's, I think "overwhelming majority" would be reasonable. There should also be no question about the fact that CPC's are pro-life in nature, which the current lead leaves ambiguous. Dylan Flaherty 20:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
John - A few points. 1) Birthright isn't explicitly Christian (at least in the minimal research I did, which was to go to their "about us" page and cite the statement that they didn't evangelize - they also don't have a religious test in order to volunteer). However, Care Net and Heartbeat are much larger (as stated in the article, they manage 3/4 of American CPCs; unaffiliated ones are also Christian), and the largest networks in the UK and Canada are also Christian. While we don't have a source that states "X% of CPCs are Christian," we do have sources that state that Care Net and Heartbeat are Christian, and a source that states that 3/4 of American CPCs are affiliated with them. We have other sources which indicate the presence of even more Christian CPCs both in the USA and abroad. I don't think it's OR to say that most CPCs are Christian - as Dylan points out, basic math is traditionally exempt, and I see no reason to make an exception for this one article.
You mention your unwillingness to be "using non-specific language if more specific language is available" - actually, that's exactly my problem with the current lead, as Schrandit and Cloonmore want it to be stated. Sure, CPCs are typically associated with Christian organizations. But that's not as specific as the information found in our sources - which is that the centers are Christian.
Dylan - Minor point, Heartbeat doesn't require a statement of faith. They're the ones that describe themselves as a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers," so it's not as if their religiosity is in doubt - I just wanted to correct that point. CAPSS requires it, but it isn't as large (it's the largest one in Canada, but Canada doesn't have as many). Roscelese (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Roscelese, I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I wasn't suggesting that Heartbeat requires a statement of faith: I meant Care Net, which does. Thank you for keeping me honest; we may be on opposite sides in some ways, but I think we both care about the truth. Dylan Flaherty 01:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think I accidentally skimmed over "with one" in that comment. Sorry. Roscelese (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the Care Net statement of faith, I just found something interesting and relevant. As a Catholic, I could not help noticing that the statement conflicted with doctrine, particularly with regard to the affirmation of sola scriptura and the concommitent rejection of ex cathedra. It turns out that I'm hardly the first to run into this obstacle, so Care Net has gone out of its way to make room for my religion. I'm not sure that this needs direct mention in the article, but it does help us to understand that Care Net is not limited to Protestants. Dylan Flaherty 01:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We've gone from red herrings about the supposed significance of the word "ministry" to cataloging a CPC's founder's membership in a Christian business person's network, so I guess it's only fitting that we conclude with Catholic theology. This ill-conceived RfC has obviously run its course, perhaps (though wrongly) leading some to conclude that they could take matters into their own hands.
Tsk tsk. I'm reverting improper edits and opening a new thread. Cloonmore (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Per BRD, I have reverted the pair of bold edits, so that we can discuss them here. Let's. Dylan Flaherty 03:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If the criteria for being Christian is having a mostly Christian staff then most Burger Kings are Christian. Also, why were we taking NARAL's word at face value? - Schrandit (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very fair to say that Care Net and Heartbeat are Christian in a way that Burger King will never be. For example, the person who makes a BK burger requires a week of training in clown college, not a statement of faith. We definitely don't have to take NARAL's word as fact, but we also can't ignore it. The right way is to find some refutation to balance it with, if that's available. Let's discuss this here before we get the page Protected. Dylan Flaherty 03:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I don't trust NARAL, so I decided to check for myself. From the Care Net website, I was able to find their FAQ on abortion risks, at http://www.optionline.org/questions/considering-abortion/. It took no effort at all to find inaccuracies. Now, this is, by definition, original research. However, we also have almost a dozen cited reliable sources that concur. The sentence about CPC's and misleading information is absolutely justified and belongs in the lead. I have strongly urged Cloonmore to replace it, so that we can avoid the appearance of an edit war. Dylan Flaherty 03:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I don't think this will be particularly controversial, but ought I to set up an archive bot on this page? It's grown quite long in the past couple of weeks, and since the earliest discussions on the page are over two years old, it might be worth archiving. The how-to page says to build consensus before running an archive bot, so here I am. (What should the auto-archive time be? By year? By month?) Roscelese (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. What I usually see is by month, for sections that haven't been edited in a few weeks. Dylan Flaherty 05:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Third-party sourcing

I'm not comfortable with too much synthesis and interpretation, and it's led to nothing but conflict, so I've looked for third-party documents that speak on the Christian nature of CPC's. I've found it one that I think is quite useful. Feel free to read it, but I've taken the liberty of summarizing some key points:

  • "Currently, there are an estimated 2,300 to 3,500 CPCs currently operating in the US, while there are only 1,800 abortion clinics."
  • Birthright has the smallest number of affiliated centers, about 400. It is not explicitly Christian and even says it doesn't evangelize. (However, it also says some other things which we know to be false, so I'm reporting this without necessarily endorsing it.)
  • Care Net has 972 affiliates and is explicitly Christian.[5]
  • Heartbeat International has 880 affiliates and is explicitly Christian.[6]
  • NIFLA claims 3000 affiliates and is explicitly Christian.[7] (Note that the number of affiliates seems artificially high, even if we allow overlap.)

No matter how you add it up, CPC's are overwhelmingly Christian. This is taken for granted [8] by others, and we should do the same.

Let's acknowledge this and move on, instead of beating a dead horse. Dylan Flaherty 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

These relationships are acknowledged, in the lead no less. - Schrandit (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian again

So let's recap, kids! CareNet affiliates are no doubt Christian because CareNet requires them to affirm such. Heartbeat International is a "Christian association" but there is no evidence that it requires its affiliates to affirm any kind of Christian faith or that its affiliates in fact profess Christian faith or doctrine. Birthright Int'l and NIFLA have no apparent religious test for affiliation. Have I missed something? Is there some other primary proof out there of the supposed "Christian" designation of the affiliates of HBI, Birthright or NIFLA? Cloonmore (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We've gone over this a few times already. I'm not sure what to tell you that you don't already know. I'm also not willing to discuss this any further until the sentence about misleading information about abortion risks is restored, because major issues take precedence over minor ones. Dylan Flaherty 03:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we've been over it in a long, digressive RfC that consisted of more rambling talk than citing to reliable sources. Hence, the new thread. So, for example, if there is some RS that shows that HBI's affiliates are "Christian," please share it. Note, the question is whether HBI's affiliates are "Christian"; that's the claim being made. (So it does not prove the point to show, for example, that HBI itself is Christian, or that its affiliates are "faith-based"). Cloonmore (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Like I've said a number of times - unless you can prove that a substantial portion of HBI's "faith-based pregnancy resource centers," which when taken all together form a "Christian association" and whose materials are "consistent with Biblical principles" - unless you can prove, by citing a source, that a substantial portion of them are any religion other than Christian (or unless you can somehow discredit Heartbeat's statement about itself), then we've got to take the source's word for it. That's how Wikipedia works. (Birthright and NIFLA have no apparent religious test, but guess what? They run, at most, a quarter of American CPCs, and we know that other CPCs among that quarter are religious. Birthright and NIFLA being completely secular would not challenge in any way the assertion that CPCs are mostly Christian.) We have the centers' word that they are Christian. What other "primary proof" do you need?

Roscelese (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know that HBI is a "Cristian association." That does not prove that every or any affiliate of HBI is Christian. You're making an unwarranted leap to claim otherwise and conflating HBI with any CPC that affiliates with it. And please point me to the RS that says that Birthright and NIFLA combined account for "at most, a quarter of American CPCs"? Thanks. Cloonmore (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you know what an association is, Cloonmore? It's not just a synonym for "organization." "Organization" might mean that HBI's top-level administration were Christian, but not imply anything about their affiliates. "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers" cannot be interpreted any other way, except deliberately.
I must have said this about six times by now - What other faith are you insisting all of these centers might be based on?
please point me to the RS that says that Birthright and NIFLA combined account for "at most, a quarter of American CPCs" - Check it out. Care Net and Heartbeat account for 3/4 of American CPCs. Math time!
I mean, I suppose it's possible that some of them might affiliate with the same centers, but that doesn't help your point - a center being affiliated with both Birthright and Heartbeat would mean that, though it might not evangelize (Birthright), it's still described as Christian (HBI).
You keep asking me to provide proof as though it isn't already cited in the article. Have you read the article, Cloonmore? Roscelese (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it is worthy of note that they say that they are a Christian association of CPCs, not a association of Christian CPCs. - Schrandit (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this distinction fairs, given that they describe the CPC's in their directory as ministries. I don't know of any secular ministries. Of course, if a completely secular CPC were to be associated with a Christian interdenominational association, it would no longer be completely secular. No matter how I look at this, I don't see any way to avoid the conclusion that CPC's are Christian. Dylan Flaherty 17:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of any new evidence or arguments on your part, I consider this discussion concluded, per WP:ICAN'THEARYOU. These points have been refuted enough times that your continual refusal to recognize the consensus amount to tendentious editing. Dylan Flaherty 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Roscelese, you appear to be making two distinct leaps in logic: (1) because HBI is a "Christian association," then every CPC affiliate is likewise "Christian" by definition, and (2) "faith-based" is a synonym of "Christian." I don't see any support for either claim.

Here's another problem with your interpretative approach: it would lead to nonsensical results. If "Christian association" means that every CPC affiliate is "Christian," and if "faith-based" CPCs also means that affiliates are "Christian," then why use both terms? In other words, if you're right, then for HBI to describe itself as a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers" would be utterly circular and redundant. Obviously, the terms have different meanings that can't simply be ignored. Cloonmore (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mentioned it, I tried to re-analyze that sentence with "Christian" and "faith-based" meaning different things, and...unsurprisingly, it doesn't change anything. Because if you detach "faith-based" from "Christian," all it does is go and attach itself to the other quote we have about HBI, which is that its stuff is "consistent with Biblical principles."
To hopefully explain in a clearer way, we can have one of these two interpretations:
1. "Christian" and "faith-based" are in reference to the centers' perception of their mission, while "consistent with Biblical principles" is in reference to the content of their counseling and handouts.
2. "Christian" is in reference to the centers' perception of their mission, while "faith-based" and "consistent with Biblical principles" are in reference to the content of their counseling and handouts.
Sooooo...not really supporting your point there, Cloonmore.
I'll ask again: If you're going to claim that "faith-based" precludes "Christian," which faith are you talking about? And since "Bible" is the word for the holy text of Judaism and Christianity, and words mean things, where are all these Jewish CPCs you're alluding to? Roscelese (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think folks are saying that faith-based precludes Christianity. - Schrandit (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Small lead

One of the things John Carter pointed out is that our lead is too small. In fact, moving things around so that they're in logical order and less repetitive has only made this worse. I propose that we move most of the lines from the "CPC services" section up to the lead, leaving the two subsections in place with a few sentences as heading. Dylan Flaherty 02:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree about expanding the lead, but CPCs services is a pretty big section. Lets cherry-pick the most relevant bits. Maybe a sentence about what medical services (other than counseling) are provided, maybe a sentence about their interactions (both positive and negative) with various American governments. - Schrandit (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

NIFLA size

We currently list Care Net, Heartbeat International and Birthright as the largest affiliations, accounting for about 2200 CPC's out of some 2300 to 3500. Given the fact that there are plenty of unaffiliated (though almost always Christian) CPC's, these numbers make some sense. Then comes NIFLA, claiming 3000 affiliates! What are we to make of this?

One thought is that NIFLA, though run by a former President of Care Net, downplays religion while coming across more like a business. They sell a service, as part of affiliation, to confirm legal compliance so that CPC's don't get sued. They sell another service to upgrade to medical clinic status so that they can perform sonograms, and they sell training for nurses to do the actual work. Could it be that most NIFLA customers are simultaneously affiliated with one the big three? If so, how do we report NIFLA's size in the article? Dylan Flaherty 02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that the source that says there are 3,000 is just wrong. NIFLA's site says there are 1,200. Roscelese (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Good catch. I think I found where the error came from, too.
Ok, 1200 is possible, more or less. It would mean there are about 3400 CPC's affiliated with these four groups. If so, then either there aren't many unaffiliated centers or the 3500 estimate for the total is too conservative. Either way, it gives NIFLA a place in the lead.
As for the issue of medical services, which Schrandit raised above, the same link says that about 700 offer ultrasound, which would be roughly a fifth of affiliated centers. Other than that, most CPC's will give over-the-counter pregnancy tests, though only under controlled circumstances (which has led to complaints). They're generally not clinics, they don't have doctors and they rarely even have RN's. The one Even if they have ultrasound, it's primarily used for non-medical purposes. In short, we can't pretend that these centers are an alternative to a full-service gynecological clinic, even if we put aside the issue of abortion.
The one I supported was quite frank, simply calling itself a counseling center, without any pretension of medical services. (Granted, one of the concerns was that they'd have to provide condoms if they claimed to be a clinic.) Dylan Flaherty 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
That might be a worthwhile distinction, to say that CPCs usually provide some medical services but usually don't have medical personnel on site. - Schrandit (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
That sounds great, but how much can we actually say while sticking to our sources? Some CPCs have real doctors and (registered) nurses, but those are by far the exception. Even then, they generally stick to working the ultrasound rather than providing comprehensive services.
In general, the only services provided are counseling and OTC pregnancy tests. At risk of oversimplifying, how much can be said about telling a young woman that Jesus wants her to keep the baby, showing her a video tape of aborted fetuses and handing her a plastic stick to pee on? This isn't exactly the Mayo Clinic. :-)
We need to go with what the reliable sources tell us. If we can find something that shows my summary is inaccurate, then let's go with that. Dylan Flaherty 09:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, so currently the article makes a few different statements about which is the largest CPC. From the numbers, it looks like it's NIFLA ("approximately 1,200" to Care Net's "more than 1,100"), but Care Net states that it is the largest. (In the USA, that is - Heartbeat is apparently the largest in the world.) What do we do? Most third-party sources don't even mention NIFLA. Roscelese (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the one I dug up earlier does mention NIFLA, but it quotes a broken link for the 3000 figure. I now suspect that the 1200/3000 error was made by GuideStar and copied by LegalMomentum, though I can't be sure. The closest thing we have to an article on NIFLA is Thomas Glessner, which describes it as a public interest law firm. Maybe CPC's are simultaneously in one of the big three affiliate networks and are clients of NIFLA. Without a list of members from each group, it's hard to confirm this, though.
I've done my best to include some mention of NIFLA without committing to hard numbers that quickly go obsolete, but like you, I would prefer more certainty about the figures. Any ideas? Dylan Flaherty 09:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

There have been a number of changes made recently, without discussion and in conflict with consensus. I am looking at them to see what parts can be salvaged. Unfortunately, if none of the changes have good elements that can be preserved, we will wind up making a "cold revert". Dylan Flaherty 04:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the statement about false medical information is completely unacceptable. It's cited to eleven independent sources, and if by some bizarre magic Schrandit and Cloonmore manage to discredit all of them, there are more. This rubbish about not trusting NARAL cannot and must not be used as an excuse to remove citations from well-established newspapers and magazines. Roscelese (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I share your concern. I'm equally concerned that they appear to be verging on edit war. I would hate to have this spiral out of control until the page was Protected or editors are blocked. However, it's clear that the article has degenerated badly in the last few hours and needs to be restored. So, really, I can't think of anything but to explain why these changes are so terrible and restore to the last good version sometime tomorrow. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Dylan Flaherty 05:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm with you. It's more than clear by this point not only that the sources support the description of the centers as "Christian," but also that the people arguing against that usage have no sources and no arguments to back them up - and, of course, the reckless removal of information has no grounding in anything. Roscelese (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I get overwhelmed by the complex system of rules and interpretations here, but then I remember WP:IAR and just apply common sense. In both of the disputed topics, the evidence is entirely one-sided.
There's not a single reason to believe that CPC's typically give accurate information about abortion risks. I visited the site for Option Line, a joint venture of Heartbeat International and Care Net, and was immediately greeted by errors so glaring that even an informed layman such as myself can easily pick them out! And it's not like this is my personal observation alone; we cited 11 reliable sources and could easily find more.
Likewise, there's just no question at all that CPC's are overwhelmingly Christian. The largest organizations, which account for three quarters of CPC's, are explicitly Christian, one of them going so far as to demand statements of faith, as if this were the faculty of a a religious school. A random sampling of CPC's turns up more references to Jesus than I get at a typical Sunday sermon, and all of our sources insist that the non-Christian ones are rare exceptions. No evidence has been presented to refute this.
The facts are not in doubt and there is no policy which insists that we report falsehoods, so there is, quite literally, nothing left to discuss. It's a very simple situation. What's complex is avoiding an edit war. I've done my part by trying to talk instead of edit the article, but all this has done so far is emboldened changes that are hard to distinguish from vandalism. At this rate, it's going to end with a cold revert, but that could easily spark a war. If so, it would be unfortunate, but I'm only willing to take responsibility for my own actions, not for unreasonable reactions. Dylan Flaherty 05:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, important point: Not all of the 11 sources are "studies," some are independent investigators or journalists. I recommend substituting "investigations" for "studies" or using some other wording that indicates that the sources aren't survey-style and don't necessarily have a large sample size. Roscelese (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Henry Waxman IS NOT a independent investigator. By all means, please do include this information but say where it comes from. Also, not sure why it should go in the lead, though that is a minor point. - Schrandit (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
At this point, the entire sentence, complete with 11 citations, has been removed entirely, and there have been other equally destructive changes. I'm trying very hard to avoid an edit war, so I'm personally asking you to revert to the last consensus version so that we can move forward from there. Please do this so that we can avoid unnecessary conflict. Dylan Flaherty 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd kindly remind you, Roscelese, to assume good faith, which you appear to have abandoned in this thread. Dylan Flaherty, your conduct is particularly troubling. You raised the edit in question with me yesterday directly on my Talk page, and we continued the discussion on your Talk page. I told you plainly that if you wanted to restore the original sentence that you had removed without discussion to the body of the article pending further discussion, then I would have no objection. You ignored that invitation, and instead came here wringing your hands about other editors, claiming that you're worried about things spiraling out of control and trying to avoid an edit war. Looks like just the opposite from my vantage point. Cloonmore (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
At this point, Cloonmore, since the choice is between assuming a) that you just haven't read the article and b) that you've read it and you're making these changes out of malice rather than ignorance, I think to assume the former is to assume good faith. Roscelese (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't, because I can't imagine removing a sentence with 11 citations and absolutely no refutation. We are clearly very, very different people. Dylan Flaherty 18:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Weren't most/all of those sources already covered in the body of the article? - Schrandit (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, because if you just remove a statement completely, even if it's cited to eleven separate sources, it totally doesn't make a difference as long as some of the articles are still cited in support of unrelated statements. Roscelese (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
A point of order: WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. If an editor has shown his or her hand in terms of POV changes to an article, assuming good faith is out the door. Staying civil is, of course, the right thing to do, but after long periods of wrangling over wording, "in the presence of contrary evidence", there is no such thing as good faith assumptions about motives. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
In the end, this is not a forum. The only purpose of our discussion is to get some consensus on what the article should contain. In this, we should be guided by key rules and the content of our sources, without attempting to achieve the full support of all participants. Dylan Flaherty 02:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It is, and not to be particularly curt, but I'll remind you that there does not exist a consensus to implement the changes you suggest with regard to the wording of CPC's interaction with religious groups. - Schrandit (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus for or against the changes Dylan made. There is similarly no consensus for keeping the article the way it was before Dylan's changes, yet here you use the concept of "no consensus" to return the article to an unsatisfactory condition, one that has no consensus. It appears that you are using the concept of consensus as a tool to put your preferred version into the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
If you read above there are two in favor of only characterizing CPCs as Christian and three in favor of keeping the longer explanation of the relationship, though I suppose I should have separated that from the rest of the edit. - Schrandit (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Didn't I already link WP:WHATISCONSENSUS? A bare majority vote won't cut it if one side is all "here are ten sources that say they're Christian" and the other is "but, but, I don't want you to say they're Christian. :(" Roscelese (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
That isn't even remotely close to what I said. - Schrandit (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

If this section isn't filled in with a list of current objections, I will remove the tag in 24 hours. This is a point of order, enforcing WP:NPOVD. Dylan Flaherty 22:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good step in improving the article. The POV tag cannot be used as a badge of shame; it must be associated with a current discussion of actionable solutions. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Gone now. Since there's been no compelling reason given to keep the other changes, I've reverted them pending new/stronger arguments. Dylan Flaherty 01:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Researching with the enemy and other pro tips

It's occurred to me that most of my research for this article has been in newspaper articles and CPC sites. I think we also need to look at sites that are explicitly hostile towards CPCs, not because they're necessarily reliable sources (though some are), but because they are hubs for information that is otherwise scattered. One site that's helped me a bit is http://cpcwatch.org/, so I figured I should share it here.

For example, during the discussion of how widespread false information is, I didn't want to just count on sources like NARAL, but I also didn't want to scour the internet on the off chance that I'd bump into sources. Instead, I went to http://cpcwatch.org/Warning-Signs.php, which listed 13 sites that (allegedly) provide false information, and was able to confirm that the allegations about the first one are true.

Note how this also allows us to avoid undue synthesis, since we're just verifying a potentially unreliable source (the biased CPCWatch) by following its claims and comparing them against reliable sources on the topic of medical information about abortion. So, for example, that site claimed abortion is linked to cancer, but we have an entire article that's full of medical sources that refute this. Dylan Flaherty 20:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of post-abortion counseling

Roscelese, I'm fine with "both". Dylan Flaherty 22:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So "ban the procedure or discourage women from having abortions"? Or the non-specific "end"? (I'm indifferent - it's just that the source cited talks about the political aspects, so I think it should be mentioned or alluded to somehow.) Roscelese (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The source I added talked about how effective it was to lie to a woman about mental health problems induced by abortion, which would be an example of "discourage women from having abortions". The NYT article that originally supported it seems to be about the political aspect, but it also mentions CPCs, which are generally not involved at the political level, as they effectively run under the motto of "change minds, not laws"[9].
The post-abortion counseling I'm most familiar with is in the context of Rachel's Vineyard, which is not a CPC. I love that they're reaching out to those who feel distanced from the Church by the fact that they had an abortion, but the web site makes it clear that it's also a source for "abortion ruined me" testimonials[10] and links to medically dishonest shock sites like http://www.afterabortion.org, both of which are used as cautionary tales to bully young women into choosing life.
Speaking very personally, I only wish CPCs sought to change minds by being consistently honest, kind and fair, instead of all too often lying, scaring and guilting. All that's done is deservedly give them a reputation that would scare off the very same women they wish to influence. On a deeper level, I have to wonder if we are so Machiavellian now that we think this particular end justifies any means, that we should violate our highest principles in the rush to support them.
And yet I'm guilty of this, in my own way, as I have made a sophisticated distinction between the Church's ban on artificial contraception as the right answer for Catholics and the wrong answer for everyone else. Or, to be fair, the ideal for all, but if you must fall short of it in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy that puts you in the position where you might consider an abortion, then so be it. Yet CPCs talk constantly of "abortion-vulnerable" women with little mention of the fact it just means women who wish they weren't pregnant. As a see it, a thoroughgoing commitment against abortion entails an acceptance, however grudging, of artificial contraception, with prevention being a lesser evil than the cure.
Ahem. I think you can see why I have a bit of friction with the Church, even though I am exceedingly faithful and loyal to it. Or, as I see it, precisely because I am so faithful and loyal. Life is complicated, pro-life no less so.
Getting back to the article, having cleared my mind by speaking it, I'm not sure that the change I originally made was a good one. I do think we need to mention the "post-abortion syndrome" issue somewhere in the Services section, but not there. It occurs to me that, while we do a good job talking about the range of services, we don't really explain what it's like to go to one. For example, we mention the free pregnancy tests, but not about being counseled or watching a video while you wait for the results, or how a positive is treated. We don't mention the specific medical inaccuracies, such as ABC, PAS and infertility. We're leaving out the meat while fighting over controversies. Some of these issues are hinted at in the criticism section, but we shouldn't be isolating and separating like that. If it's mixed in then it balances and is balanced by the surrounding content, instead of being an afterthought. Dylan Flaherty 23:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, the thing with the line about the goal of post-abortion counseling is that it's kind of extraneous to the article (I don't follow Abortion and mental health but I assume such counseling is discussed there). I am completely open about having added it to avoid having a one-sentence paragraph, and if you think having it there isn't a good idea, I'm cool with removing it now that the paragraph is more than one sentence without it.
I think adding more information about the experience seems like a good idea. Roscelese (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The NYT article linked post-abortion counseling with CPCs for a reason, which is also the reason we should make some mention of it. It's fine where it is, but we're probably going to wind up moving the reference I added once there's a paragraph that is a closer fit for it.
Before we start filling in the outline I sketched out above, is there an reliable document we could use as our primary source? Dylan Flaherty 23:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
As a source on the CPC experience? Well, a lot of the newspaper articles I cited talk about the experience in general. And CPC websites sometimes have testimonies, which for this purpose I would probably consider RS if they provide specific information (ie. "they showed me a video and gave me a small pair of socks" not "they were great!!"). Roscelese (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Right, we're looking for something factual, not a review that ends with thumbs up or down. As you may have noticed, I'm not a great writer and I particularly have a problem with my line of thought wandering, so I sometimes make outlines and notes to work from. I don't usually do this for Wikipedia (and it shows), but let me share what I have so far, not as a direct proposal for inclusion in the article, but as a starting point. I'll post it in its own section. Dylan Flaherty 02:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Case study

Case Study of EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers, a high-profile chain in NY (based on http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/21/opinion/the-right-to-lie.html and http://www.emcfrontline.org)

  1. Looks like a doctor's office, but isn't. Is in low-income communities, close to Planned Parenthood. Waiting room includes video loop of graphic abortions.
  2. Web site also mentions mobile unit, which is an RV/camper. BTW, EMC stands for Expectant Mother Care; the M does not mean medical, the way it does in EMT. According to NY1, (http://www.emcfrontline.org/story.php?id=23), "Planned Parenthood of New York City called it a trap for women.", quoting: "They expect to receive neutral comprehensive medical care and instead are greeted with manipulation and ideology designed to coerce and scare them,” said Planned Parenthood of New York City’s president, Joan Malin, in a statement."
  3. Back to the CPC according to the NYT, asked to fill out paperwork, both about the medical aspects and religious beliefs, such as church affiliation and baptismal status. Yes, this center is very much explicitly Christian.
  4. Volunteers trend towards older women. Told about saving lives, free will, living with choices.
  5. Commitments made towards housing, health care and a job, including job for partner and money for school, contingent upon the pregnancy not being terminated. Nothing in writing and not within advertised scope of services (see below).
  6. Provided urine for pregnancy test but told it was inconclusive (despite being 23 weeks pregnant!). Immediately prepped for a sonogram, ostensibly to confirm pregnancy.
  7. Sonagram took less than five minutes but was described as giving "the baby a full examination" and declaring "your baby is healthy and perfect". No doctor or nurse, and much too short for a full check-up. Emphasis instead on calling fetus or embryo a baby and insisting on its good health (regardless of lack of evidence).
  8. CPC admitted clearly that abortion would not be on the table, and that the center was here to do God's work.
  9. Much affection, to the point of love-bombing as per cult technique. Is this typical?
  10. According to their own web site (http://emcfrontline.org/page.php?id=1), they have a success rate of about 1/3.
  11. Site mentions "partnerships with supervising physicians" for ultrasound, although no physician specifically supervised this procedure.
  12. "One of its centers is located across the street from Planned Parenthood, and one is housed in the same building as a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic and a second abortion Mill-Dr. Emily's, and other centers are next door to, or are down the block from other abortion clinics."
  13. "EMC has the most paid-staff working in pregnancy centers statewide (10)." - Clearly, most centers are staffed by volunteers with just a paid director, if that.
  14. Links to a DBA at http://abortion-options.com/, which says nothing about the various post-pregnancy commitments. Ditto for http://emcfrontline.org/page.php?id=5. Says "Minors OK" without mentioning legal disclosure issues.
  15. Basic math (which is not WP:OR) says that they averaged under 11 clients per day over the course of 25 years. Presumably, this average reflects much lower numbers back when there was just a single center, not 10+. Even so, it's not at all big. A single doctor can easily see more than that number of patients in a day at a clinic, and these people aren't doctors. They're also all full on volunteers, so it's not like they need more smiling faces.
  16. Site says (http://www.emcfrontline.org/page.php?id=5) "Our goals are to encourage expectant moms to choose motherhood, and either marriage, adoption, or self-sufficiency, and to turn toward chaste lifestyles". They're not kidding about chastity: nowhere is contraception even mentioned.
  17. Unfortunately, client/reporter did not stick around long enough to hear anything about medical risks. We'll have to use another source for that.

That's all I have for now. I'm open to comments and suggestions. Dylan Flaherty 03:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking back, I'm really not happy with this approach. The article I extracted information from was basically a write-up of one woman's visit to one clinic once. Calling it a case study doesn't fix this.
If we're going to report what it's like to go to a clinic, this will likely mean making some statements that are true but controversial. These are natural targets for entirely reasonable complaints about picking and choosing a non-representative example. What this means is that we can't go entirely on our own research, and we can't use only pro or con sources.
I think the key is to recognize that there aren't 4000+ independent centers. While there might be a few of those out there, especially limited-hours centers run out of other institutions, such as churches, these are not the mainstream. The mainstream revolves around a few names that keep showing up. So if we can cover those, we won't be putting our own spin on anything.
A great example of the sort of source we need is the appendix in http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf. This goes over items in the CAPPS training manual and has a physician point out errors, mentioning both America and Canada. Still, it's a pro-choice (hence anti-CPC) source, so we have to be careful. I was also annoyed that, however this organization got that manual, it wasn't by searching for it on Google!
That got me thinking. Through a series of pro and con sites, I bumped into a complaint about a company called eKYROS, based on the claim that it violates client confidentiality by uploading data to a centralized location. Putting this aside for a moment (although we may yet return to it), the site sells software for internal use by CPC's and is associated with, well, just about everyone. Here's the list from the Community Links section of http://www.ekyros.com/Pub/:
At The Center, CAPSS, CareNet, Focus on the Family, Heartbeat International, Life Begins, Life Steward Ministries, MobileUltrasound.org, NIFLA, PCCTalk.org, OptionLine, Stand Up Girl.com
If that's not exhaustive, it's certainly comprehensive, not to mention representative. The main page had a chart-of-the-day, which was a pie chart listing pregnancy test results YTD 2010. There were 188,442 clients covered, which means that all of eKYROS' customers together see fewer than 200,000 women a year (barring some huge Christmastime increase, of course). More interestingly, 114,775 (61%) tested positive, 64,721 (34%) negative, 8,157 (4%) brought proof of pregnancy from a previous test, and only 789 (0%) were inconclusive. Wow! Before, we could suggest that it was very unlikely for that reporter to have had an inconclusive test, based on general medical knowledge. Now we can put a hard number on it, and that number is effectively zero. That's amazing!
Even better, it has documents online in PDF files, and these give a first-hand indication of how things work inside the center. For example, http://www.ekyros.com/Pub/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=66 is a treasure trove of detailed, accurate information, without any chance of bias by pro-choice/anti-CPC sources. We can be fair and comprehensive, without all the hedging and guessing.
There are even more reports at http://www.ekyros.com/Pub/Default.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=16. The first has age breakdowns and total served. 1.33% are under 15, 24.61% are 15-19, 34.23% are 20-24, 18.79% are 25-29, 9.26% are 30-34, with the 35 and over being 7.02%. The 4.18% for unknown age gives us some insight into how often they don't ask for age and/or don't get an answer.
Note that we can ask for previous years and correlate measures such as age, race, marital status, religion, education, income and gender. Here we learn that religion is unknown in 22.69%. To put it another way, it means there's over a 75% chance that they will find out your religion. We can also see that about 60% are Christian (if you don't break out Catholics as they did), with None coming in at 8.83%, far behind Unknown. They separate out Catholics, JW's and Mormons from Christians. They misspell Mormon as "Morman" and seem to think that Wicca is an acronym. Their breakdown for spiritual status is 36.43% unknown, 35.64% already a believer (in Jesus, I presume), 13.68% not a believer, 10.18% unsure, with 3.34% giving a profession of faith and 0.73% rededicating themselves.
Another report tracks test results as compared to factors such as birth control, age, marital status, race, religion, birth control, initial abortion risk assessment, stated intentions support and changed abortion view. For example, 74.69% of all clients were not on birth control. Of those with positive test results, the figure was 77.87%, while it's 83.36% for the proof-of-pregnancy group. Only 18.51% are married. It also tells us that 50.84% were initially likely to carry, with 29.38% "abortion vulnerable" and 8.52% "abortion minded". The stated intentions skews more towards birth, with 59.24% intending to carry, 7.89% undecided and 3.3% planning to abort. Note that 9.72% were undecided and a whopping 19.84% were not appliable; why would it not be applicable unless the women were so far along in their pregnancy that abortion wasn't a legal options? For changed abortion view, 4.35% were claimed, with 4.59% unknown. This is along with 48.68% already planning to carry, 7.61% not changing abortion view, and 34.76% negative/inconclusive.
I have to admit I'm overwhelmed by the flood of hard numbers. There's a lot more in there that I haven't analyzed, such as user manuals which explain the techniques, the topics of interest and so on. At this point, I think we can start integrating some of this data, and I would certainly be open to assistance. Dylan Flaherty 05:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a possiblity on the 19.84% NA - I know a girl who volunteered at the CPCs and she said a good number of their clients were already intent on having their baby but were financially poorly off and knew that the CPCs could help them out (free prenatal, clothes for the baby etc.). - Schrandit (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, we already know that a narrow majority initially intend to carry to term, so why would these women be counted as "NA" instead of being grouped in with that majority?
My best guess -- and I haven't confirmed it -- is that they might be accounting for men who come in with women, since they are cannot be pregnant. Dylan Flaherty 21:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crisis_pregnancy_center/Archive_2&oldid=1140139133"