Talk:Planned Parenthood

Minimal cost

Why doesn't the article mention that part of PP's charter is that it provides services at MINIMAL COST to the patients? PP's identity as a minimal-cost outfit is central to who they are. 2604:2000:C6A1:B900:518A:BA4A:BC4A:2BA2 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

We would need a source for that. Do you have one? I won't revert your edit, but "minimal cost" is fighting words to some editors. So a source would be good.Mattnad (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would belong in the article without a secondary source, even if primary sources say it. (I do find PP websites which state that they offer low or no-cost birth control, disease screenings, etc.) Sorting through Google results to weed out primary/unreliable sources, I do find this, which says "affordable", "subsidized". It might be easier to source "serves low-income women" than "provides low-cost stuff," but maybe I'm just not Googling well enough - some of the results related to "cost" talk about cost to the government or long-term cost of failing to prevent unwanted pregnancy, rather than the cost of individual services. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an article discussing low-cost services but that's to the government. Still interesting tidbit that can be added. This article comments that when Planned Parenthood clinics had their state funding before legislative changes, some services "were virtually free"Mattnad (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Stand on political/legal issues: Becky Bell

I've just changed the wording on PP's opposition to parental consent laws as the previous wording jibed with neither the source it used ( which said that Becky's parents claimed that she died as a result of the parental consent law, not that this claim is an incontrovertible fact), nor with Wikipedia's own article on the case of Becky Bell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.116.10 (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not up to us to posit a position contrary to the reliable source. The Becky Bell article has two competing narratives including the one that does lay her death on parental consent laws. Mattnad (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's right, it is "not up to us to posit a position contrary to the reliable source" which is why I made the change in the first place. The first sentence of the Madison Courier article says (my emphasis added) "The death of a 17-year-old Indianapolis girl from complications of an illegal abortion was a tragic consequence of a parental consent law, her parents say." Thus, the fact being conveyed is not that she died due to a parental consent law but, rather, that her parents say that she did.

Now, as to the wording that we must use instead, I'm open to compromise, although I think that what I've just replaced it with isn't too bad. 71.174.116.10 (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that, rather than speculation by wikipedia editors as to how her death is related to the parental consent laws, the article could instead state that Planned Parenthood asserts or argues or contends that it was due to parental consent laws. It should be easy enough to find some material stating PP's position on this. If not, I don't see how the article could claim that they cite this case in their stand on this issue. Sterrettc (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Abby Johnson

It is noticeable that Abby Johnson, a former manager at PPFA who resigned abruptly in 2009 and who apparently developed a media profile as a result is not referenced in this article. GerixAu (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

She seems pretty marginally notable - Google doesn't pick up any significant coverage in reliable sources more than a couple of weeks after she was first in the news. Certainly not enough to merit a mention in this article; probably the linked article should be deleted for lack of notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

She notable among pro-life circles for her stance, but that's more important for her than for Planned Parenthood. That she worked for Planned Parenthood is incidental but not notable for this article.Mattnad (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It is sufficient that she is mentioned here. Thanks all GerixAu (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected

I blocked User:1517today for other things apart from their 1RR violation here, and I see another admin has blocked a disruptive IP, but I suggest that, instead of me blocking User:Marauder40, User:Roscelese and User:Ptpdx90 right now for 1RR, those editors discuss what is obviously a controversial addition here, rather than edit-warring over it. I'm not particularly familiar with the subject, but I'd expect something which clearly may have have BLP implications to have better sources than the Daily Caller and Youtube. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

first off I would like to know why I am included in a potential block list for 1rr violation. I only reverted once for a person that deleted sourced material with lots of other changes as "obvious trolling" which was incorrect and the other revert was obvious vandalism. Ros has done two reverts in the same day claiming "obvious BLP" issues, but that is not the case with these edits. There may be problems with the quality of the sources, but it isn't a BLP issue. The only person mentioned in the section is actually speaking in the video. There are numerous sources that this happened. Ros has gotten into trouble before for gaming the system by claiming BLP for doing reverts above the one revert she is allowed for ANY article per day, let alone articles with 1rr restrictions, Also I didn't revert her change, I instead already engaged her on her talk page addressing the fact that I felt she violated 1rr. This issue is now being covered by both the Washiington Post and the Huffington Times. I assume people will consider them RS.Marauder40 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I watched the video. Aside from it being a primary, self-published source (not RS per WP policy) It's not at all clear that planned parenthood is selling organs and tissue. It's common practice for mothers to sign a release permitting the use of fetal tissue for research and it sounds like there are some industry practices of fee for the delivery of the samples. However, during the video, the person said they don't do it because it's not something that PPFA wants to do. Not that it matters, since it's not an acceptable source, the video is misleading in that it starts with a news story intro about a completely different topic (and a copyvio at that), then cuts to the edited undercover video, and then to a completely separate and unrelated conversation with Cecile Richards. We try to do better with our sources. This one is very poor. As to the separate coverage, it's about the reaction to the video, and not a reflection on its accuracy or endorsement of what it purports to show.Mattnad (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the text as written before is supported by what is in the Washington Post article with minor tweaks, like removing the links to YouTube. The Planned Parenthood response can be added to it. This is definitely not an "obvious" BLP violation, more a case of reporting stuff as it is developing. Marauder40 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course the coverage can be included, but it should be NPOV, such as mentioning that fetal tissue donations are standard in research etc. There's no need to provide a detailed quote from the video since out of context, it's POV. Since we have some time until the page protection is lifted, why don't you work on a proposed sentence or two based on the reliable sources for discussion.Mattnad (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Marauder40 accused a named, living private figure of "discussing the sale of fetal organs", which is a serious crime. The cited sources are nowhere near the bar that any responsible editor would consider appropriate for such an inflammatory charge. In fact, serious sources, such as the Washington Post, make clear that the person in question was discussing the donation of fetal tissue for research after appropriate informed consent, not the "sale of fetal organs". The edit in question was defamatory and a serious BLP violation for which Marauder40 could have, and perhaps should have, been blocked. At a minimum, it would be good to see some recognition of how deeply irresponsible this sort of approach to editing is. MastCell ^Talk 00:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. To be on the safe side, for the time being I've revision-deleted all the revisions which named the person involved. Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, where did I accuse anyone of anything? Other then returning sourced material to an article and reverting nonsense I didn't do anything to the article. Looks like the pitchforks and torches are out. Marauder40 (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Reuters article here. Reuters does not allow comments on their website, and unlike other sites, does not report in a way likely to get pageviews/outrage. Reuters is widely considered an RS, and it's worth noting that their article doesn't include speculation, conjecture and outrage mongering. -- Callinus (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Mattnad, as laudable as your willingness to engage with the content of the sources is, it's pointless. Reliable sources must be found for controversial claims, especially BLP-sensitive ones. Marauder40, you should be ashamed of yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

the problem is that you are both a sanctioned editor AND doing it on a 1rr article. You have been told before if there is ANY doubt about something you should let someone else do the revert. Again you are gaming the system.Marauder40 (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese The story was covered by the Washington Post and Reuters, both of which characterize it more as another attempt to smear planned parenthood with what seems like baseless charges, followed by posturing by a Republican presidential hopeful (Jindal). A sentence on that could be appropriate based on the reliable sources. The way it was written previously was completely POV, didn't employ a reliable source, and was a BLP violation per Mastcell's point. However, I don't see an issue with creating a discussion section to work on language here with an opportunity to get consensus.Mattnad (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. I'm just responding to your comments on the video's content; at the time I reverted the addition, it didn't contain any reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Marauder40 - the point I was making is when it isn't immediately obvious who is and who isn't breaking 1RR, and what the merits of their edits are, we protect the article. I do realize that your second revert was reverting nonsense. However, I must take issue with you here - "There may be problems with the quality of the sources, but it isn't a BLP issue." - that is the very definition of a BLP issue. We need top quality sources for anything controversial in a BLP. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a case where instead of an immediate second revert (by a sanctioned editor) a request for a better source could have been made. A quick search could have found several out there. Both Washington Post and Huffington and many other media outlets are covering this. This smells very much like the typical covering up anything bad about this organization.Marauder40 (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Policy is very clear round here. If people are going to rush to get information into a BLP such that its sources don't stand up, those edits should, and will be removed. And if people keep attempting to re-insert them, the article will get protected until they can do it properly. We don't leave badly-sourced material in BLPs "until better sources are found". Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the RS given were B level sources, yes A level sources should be in the article and were easily available and could have been provided if the article wasn't immediately locked down. I had the A level sources ready to go but if I had put them in it would have in effect been another revert of Ros's 2nd revert which would have up me in violation of 1rr. As I said on my talk page, it is interesting the comparison between how this "developing story" was handled and the FRC/Josh Duggar developing story was handled would make for an interesting case study. Immediate lock down, removal of any claims, even though claims are actually in RS vs. no lock down, early reports with less then RS remain. Personally I think the lockdown was an overreaction due to the IP vandalism that was going on at the same time confusing things.Marauder40 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting Black Kite for emphasis: If people are going to rush to get information into a BLP such that its sources don't stand up, those edits should, and will be removed. It's not the responsibility of policy-respecting editors to go looking for RS for every garden-variety libel out there. (I did a quick google but the first page was all rubbish like LifeNews.) Instead, if editors want content to be in an article, especially when it involves BLP, they need to find sources that aren't so patently ridiculous. I'm amazed that you seem to have a problem with removing unsourced claims of living people selling organs on the black market. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is "unsourced claims of living people selling organs on the black market" wasn't what the actual quote that ANOTHER editor had placed in the article, of course we can't see that now since all the immediate versions were removed. The quote the editor gave is contained within some of the sources that are RS. As I said before the sources that were given were B level RS and the A level version existed. I withheld putting them in because I couldn't do it since reverting your SECOND revert on the same page in the same day would have put me in violation of 1rr. If your revert hadn't been there I could have inserted the RS.Marauder40 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dude! "You should have left the whacked-out BLP violation in the article" is a non-starter. Get over it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I just say that whilst I protected the article for a week, if we can get this issue sorted out to everyone's agreement I'll lift the protection back to semi as soon as that's done. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add a small comment in here about how ALL the major media outlets have written about this yet Black Kite and others are taking a stand of protecting the article first and trying to reach a consensus before posting anything. This doesn't happen on any of the current event articles up to and including the VERY controversial ones about Israel-Palestine or Ukraine-Russia, then why here? I honestly believe, as a non-registered long-time user of Wikipedia, that this is, in effect, a curtailment of free speech due to overt political correctness. Apparently it is now a crime to criticize Planned Parenthood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.237.185 (talk • contribs) 18:23, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

I share your concerns. It feels like there's a strong slant at work here. The text they finally inserted hardly reads as neutral. Burnsbert (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

One major difference; there was a WP:BLP concern here, therefore we first remove any controversial text that has been added, and then we discuss it. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the BLP concerns are a major reason for waiting until all the evidence is in. We have been told that more will be released.

Keep in mind that the only reason there has been controversy over this is that the original videos have been heavily edited by the very people who have previously done the same and been exposed for fraudulent and deceptive editing. The same seems to be happening here, and there are lots of RS which examine just how deep the deception really goes. When all has been released, we will be able to examine what all the RS say about it and we can cover it from all angles. The original, unedited video seems to portray a rather mundane discussion of completely legal matters. It's the edited version which presents a problem because it places it in a totally different and sinister light. That's what propaganda does.

A strong piece of evidence against this interpretation has been noted by some RS, and that is the fact that Nucatola isn't stressed, secretive, or scheming. She discusses very openly, which would only happen if she, with a clean conscience, is discussing normal and legal matters. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This deception is so serious that the Editorial Board of the New York Times has spoken:

• The Campaign of Deception Against Planned Parenthood, By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, JULY 22, 2015

BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Golly! A group of unanimously pro-choice, pro-Planned Parenthood editors criticized the "sting" video. How impressive!! 68.0.207.169 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist. Striking comments. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Of course. We're all people who come at this from different angles and we read different RS, hence some may be surprised that there are other POV than those which their favorite sources present. So be it.

This is the essence of what Wikipedia is all about: No one knows everything, but everyone knows something, and when they get together and collaboratively bring what they have to the table, a fuller picture emerges than any one of them envisioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 July 2015

I tried to edit the article to update financial information based on most recent reports, but the article says it is "protected." How do I submit my edits? Techielaw (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Techielaw (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC) For whatever it's worth, I was intending to cite to annual reports and government reports for statistical information, and a federal statute for a proposition about the law. I'm not really sure how any of this data would be controversial. Techielaw (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you want changed and what is your source? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The article has been protected until 21 July, so until then I'm afraid you have to submit edit requests for any edits you would like made to the article. If you specify the exact text that you would like changed, and the exact text that should replace it (complete with references), and if there is also a consensus to make the edits, then please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template and an admin will edit the page for you. If your proposed edit might be controversial, you will need to leave some time for people to discuss it to decide if there is a consensus before reactivating the template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Deborah Nucatola

How is this for a start? Just using hard links now, clean up to cite templates later.

• In July 2015, Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical research for Planned Parenthood was recorded by members of the Center for Medical Progress discussing the donation of fetal tissue. The Center for Medical Progress says "the footage proves that Planned Parenthood is breaking the law by selling fetal organs". Anti-abortion groups said that the video "shows that Planned Parenthood is essentially selling fetal organs and that Congress and other authorities should investigate." [1] A representative for Planned Parenthood said, "At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field." (use either the cite from post or actual cite from Planned Parenthood [2]) Both an edited video and the raw source video have been released by the Center for Medical Progress.

More can be added between the quotes, but I figured I would at least get the quotes together in one place. Could also add things like the fact that Presidential candidates have commented on the issue and things like that, but I figure this is a start.Marauder40 (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"In July 2015, Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical research for Planned Parenthood was recorded" If we're going to add text, it should be factual. Multiple sources place the recording date of the video to have been in July of 2014. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How about "In July 2015 video was released of Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical research for Planned Parenthood that was recorded by members of the Center for Medical Progress in July 2014 discussing the donation of fetal tissue."?Marauder40 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) This isn't bad, but we don't have to mention Nucatola's name. We can instead just say, "a senior director of medical research...." which avoids any BLP concerns, but still conveys the substance. Also, the last sentence is not required.Mattnad (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a BLP issue, the person actually said it, the person's name is in the Washington Post and Reuters. If you just say a senior official, when the person's name is actually known someone will add the "who?" template. I think the last sentence is needed to counter claims that the video is doctored/edited, but like I said what I provided is a start, not the finished thing going into the article.Marauder40 (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nucatola's name has been published in many RS's, there is not BLP concern here. WeldNeck (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to put the name then it's not a good idea to put unfounded interpretations of what she said based solely upon video created by an admittedly biased source. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is funny that people say we shouldn't publish her name, CNN is publishing both her name and her picture. [3] BLP does not apply to using her name here.Marauder40 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how we convey the story around her name of course. For instance, if we characterize this as an attempt to smear planned parenthood, and that all she was doing is describing how they preserve samples that's one thing. But including the unfounded accusations of a pro-life group is another.Mattnad (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And saying it exactly how you stated it would be putting a POV to the situation. We need to cover this impartially using RS, not insert our own interpretations into the story or the interpretations of selected RS that might back a particular POV. Not putting in the reason the video was published in the first place is censorship/whitewashing pure and simple. Even CNN is covering the issue better then you just suggested.Marauder40 (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Have RS's characterized her comments as organ trafficking, then they should be included. Have other RS's characterized her comments as an explanation of how they preserve tissue samples for donations, then they should be included as well. Haveing one explanation and not the pother when both appear in reliable sources is, as Marauder40 put it, whitewashing. WeldNeck (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Have RS's characterized her comments as organ trafficking" - no you don't, you have the imputation in Yellow Journalism outlets. There's no evidence that Stemexpress sells the tissue samples to anybody other than medical researchers. -- Callinus (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also, don't use the Washington Post reference, it just copies and pastes yellow journalism from other sources - Reuters or CNN appear to have done original research or attempted to fact check, and removed the most specious claims. -- Callinus (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WAPO is a reliable source by every criteria given. WeldNeck (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between "formally meets the RS criteria" and "actually is a good choice to use." Callinus's comment is about the latter. (Incidentally, as far as I can tell no RS's have characterized PP's actions in the way you describe above; rather, they say that someone else has so-characterized it, or otherwise hedge their language. And with good reason.) --JBL (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There is weight issue too. This was a stunt that got picked up. As we know Wikipedia is not the News. Unless there's any fallout beyond a couple of news mentions, we should not give it too much ink.Mattnad (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Several states have stated there would be formal investigations over this ... is that not fallout? WeldNeck (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really when it comes to politics. Politicians posture all the time. Now if an investigation finds wrongdoing, then it's notable. In other cases in this section, there was more to it, like an employee was sanctioned by PP. This "sting" is right now a headline grabber, but hardly notable at this point. Here we have a video of someone discussing how they get samples for research and according to reliable sources is standard for the industry. At most, it's an example of the politicization of Abortion and how fetal tissue is used, which could be in the Abortion article. By comparison, there is nothing on this article about the court cases relating to state efforts to require clinics to have upgraded facilities which are working their way through the courts.Mattnad (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Covered by all the major news networks, independent state investigations being launched, Congress launching investigations, probable violation in law by admitting to modifying medical procedures to facilitate organ donation.[4] Definitely meets notability standards. Marauder40 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit notable, but republican's criticizing PP is nothing new. We even have a quote in the fox article of a Republican saying something to the effect, that just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's moral (a suggestion that most of this is outrage about facts of tissue harvesting). And where in any of the sources does it say they illegally modified procedures?Mattnad (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't been reading the entire articles. Even the CNN article talks about it. [5] Of course the CNN article only mentions it is unethical, other RS list that it is in fact illegal and give the corresponding statutes, of course those statutes vary state to state.Marauder40 (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The CNN article very clearly attributes all such claims to others; the discussion of illegal activity is also clearly hypothetical. There's nothing substantive here; I'm sure it can get its paragraph just like other BS "stings" get theirs (though probably some of the older stuff could be trimmed) but basically there is very little encyclopedic here. --JBL (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)×

Not many people actually addressing the content of what I suggested adding. Since the protection will be released tomorrow how is this for inserting into the article?

• In July 2015, video was released of Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical research for Planned Parenthood, that was recorded by members of the Center for Medical Progress in July 2014 discussing the donation of fetal tissue. Both an edited 8 minute video and an unedited 150 minute video were released. The Center for Medical Progress says "the footage proves that Planned Parenthood is breaking the law by selling fetal organs." Anti-abortion groups said that the video "shows that Planned Parenthood is essentially selling fetal organs and that Congress and other authorities should investigate."[6] A representative for Planned Parenthood said, "At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field."[7]Marauder40 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that we are now discussing possible content in at least two places. A few comments are also at the bottom of the page. How about starting a new section for proposals? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the only section that actually has ANY proposals for actual content. That was the reason this section was started in the first place. The other section you are talking about doesn't actually have any content suggestions, only POV statements without any cites, some of which are bordering on BLP violations against the Center for Medical Progress (i.e. "unethical")Marauder40 (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

??? I suggested a new section for proposals. This section is so heavy on discussion that it's distracting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible to commit a BLP violation against an entity that is not an LP. This sort of ridiculous battleground nonsense (particularly while promoting absurd claims against actual private individuals) makes constructive engagement extremely difficult. --JBL (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

An calling discussion "ridiculous battleground nonsense" helps how? Notice I said bordering on,, didn't say it was. Marauder40 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's an alternative approach to Maurader40's:

In July 2015, a secretly recorded video was released depicting Planned Parenthood's medical director discussing the legal practice of acquiring fetal tissue samples for medical research and included discussions of shipping and handling costs. Pro-life politicians and groups have called the video disturbing, the described conduct immoral, and have raised the possibility of investigations.[8] (and whatever other sources needed)

I don't think we need to get into the tit for tat on how the video was edited, or a lot of the posturing by various parties which are part of the usual noise in these matters.Mattnad (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This is totally one sided POV. No reasons as to why it is immoral or why the video was taken and distributed. Instead of presenting the issue and letting the reader decide this is taking a "side" on the issue, specifically Planned Parenthood's side. Also you are purposely leaving the person's name out of the coverage, yet it is widely known and published in multiple reliable sources. Marauder40 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it one sided? There are no official charges of illegal activity. There are opinions on the matter but as I mentioned, those are political posturing, that come from sources who are not legal experts on the matter and have no direct knowledge of what planned parenthood does. I personally don't see the need to attach a name to this based on opinion, but that's just me and several other editors. While it's light on the concerns around morality, there's no detail on how it's legal or common practice either. There's no detail on how the video recording was edited heavily and distorted the conversation, or that the group is a pro-life organization with little history. What it does IMHO give the detail appropriate for this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the news. Let's see how other editors react, and then perhaps we have can have an official RFC on two versions.Mattnad (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The context is very important. This would never have made the news if the video had not been heavily and deceptively edited. The coverage in RS focuses on this fact, and the exposure of the deception is also covered in multiple RS. Our coverage must include these facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

These videos are always edited for impact. But the more important issue is not a deception, but what it depicts and the reaction. From what I can tell, most of the fallout has to do with the casual tone of the medical director which is not an issue of editing. But I'm sure people would flip out if they saw morticians discussing how they deal with the dead among themselves.Mattnad (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood, involved in human organs trafficking

Why was my comment deleted? I wrote a comment here about a controversy related to Planned Parenthood, this is, Planned Parenthood is involved of the sale of partially-born fetuses' organs, and I gave a proof of it. If there are more proofs about this, I will look up for them, but it is a serious accusation. Could anyone explain me why was my comment deleted?
A hidden camera video about this accusation can be found on Youtube, with the name "Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts" --187.189.168.247 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You can read the discussion above, but a Youtube posting is considered a primary source (self published at that) which on it's own is not enough.Mattnad (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see the whole discussion above. I thought this matter was being ignored, but I see it isn't so. Thanks!
--187.189.168.247 (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Overprotecting this article?

This article has been protected until July 21, which would mark a week after the major media outlets published the story regarding a video released by the Center for Medical Progress in which they state that it shows proof that abortion doctors sell body parts [9] Regarding the recent "editing wars" in this very same Talk Page, I wish to ask those that prefer this page to be protected against "vandalism" why, even though Wikipedia is not a news site, are we waiting over a week before adding this information?

This very same information can easily be curated and added by any Administrator in a very neutral way. Nobody is blindly attacking people here but these are some the facts regarding this infamous incident up until this moment:

• The original YouTube video has over 2.3 million views [10] - Far less popular videos have been featured in Wikipedia articles.
• The unedited full Youtube video has over 160k views [11] - Obviously not as popular but both were released from the same "The Center for Medical Progress" account [12]
• This incident has been covered in basically all the major news outlets of the world. Here's the top 10 newspapers in the US by circulation, culled from it's own WP article [13] and their recent coverage of the issue: Wall Street Journal [14], New York Times [15], USA Today [16], Los Angeles Times [17], Daily News [18], New York Post [19], The Washington Post [20], Chicago Sun-Times [21], Denver Post [22], Chicago Tribune [23].
• This incident has also been widely covered in all the major news organizations and most of the biggest newspapers in the world, as a further example here are some links from the WP article regarding the largest newspapers and news agencies [24] and [25]: Daily Mail [26], The Guardian [27], BBC [28], CNN [29], Reuters [30], Agencia EFE [31], AP [32], CBS [33], El Universal/Notimex [34]
• All of the aforementioned links mention the interviewed Dr's full name and do not hide it.
• Almost all of the aforementioned sources have posted follow up articles where several members of the US Congress and high-profile politicians have commented/demanded/asked for Congressional probing over this issue. All of these policy makers and opinion makers have their very own WP pages so this only serves to enhance the notability of this incident.
• Also, for those arguing against notability over this incident due to this being only a "headline-grabber" or "posturing by Republicans", I have not used a single time any Fox News or Republican Party source.

With all of this information at our hands, why can't we just post a paragraph or two regarding this situation in the most neutral POV we can? Failure to do so while waiting for such a long time will void this article of having current information while making Wikipedia a passive supporter and defender of Planned Parenthood over this incident instead of keeping itself neutral.

Note: I am personally in favor of Planned Parenthood even though I might disagree with some of it's PR responses. I do not know nor am interested in making this a personal attack against any editor or administrator. I have also been warned 2 times already, by two long-time editors, over how I should just be patient and not post more in here as it could be misconstrued as inflammatory. I believe I am respecting all of the guidelines of WP in this post and if there is anything that I am ignoring please post in my talk page and I will edit what's necessary. Mindlessly deleting posts without explanation is akin to silencing dissent.

200.42.237.185 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You aren't reading comments left on your talk page. You need to be patient and follow talk page guidelines.

As far as making an edit to a protected article goes (and the protection is proper in this situation), you will also need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Edit requests and use this template {{edit protected}}, BUT read your talk page first, slow down, and be patient. Hasty comments and decisions will be your undoing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer, I believe I have read everything you posted on my talk page but all I can see are epithets of being "hasty" and coercion regarding not posting anymore. Originally you stated "Discuss actual article improvement. Make actual suggested wordings, with good sources, which we can discuss and use." and I went ahead and posted 586 words with 25 different sources. Instead of you at least acknowledging this, whether it was right or wrong, or even improve upon it, you went ahead and stated "Don't exhibit anymore battlefield behavior or you'll just get blocked." and most importantly you stated "You WILL lose this one because you don't understand our policies."

I'd like to quote Wikipedia's Statement of Principles regarding this issue [35]: "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." I don't see this Principle being followed.

Note to all other editors: I have read all the comments left on Planned Parenthood's Talk Page regarding this recent incident, I have also strived to provide as much extra information but, to quote another editor here, "Covered by all the major news networks, independent state investigations being launched, Congress launching investigations, probable violation in law by admitting to modifying medical procedures to facilitate organ donation. Definitely meets notability standards. -Marauder40". I understand this is a hotly debated topic but protecting this article for a week while the whole range of media covers it, follows upon it and there's enough quotes, videos and speeches about this incident to write a book about it yet we are the ONLY widely read place to NOT discuss this due to "policies" is definitely NOT maintaining a neutral POV. Sadly one editor keeps telling me that "The subject will get covered in the article, but we must wait for more information. -BullRangifer" and yet I fail to see what extra information do we still need?

Extra note: I apologize in advance if the above posts offend anybody. I have reviewed them carefully and believe they do not exhibit battlefield behaviour [36] Most importantly, due to the protection this page has been afforded I have not edited it ever. I have only posted on this talk page. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, please note that the Center for Medical Progress says they will be releasing a new video every week for the next several months. Let's wait and see if that happens. If it does, then long-term semi-protection is probably a good idea. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 04:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

To Anon, this sting warrants a few lines, but the details are pretty straight forward if we avoid the usual mountain out of a molehill efforts. Per reliable sources, Planned parenthood director was secretly video taped discussing the legal practice of acquiring fetal tissue samples for research and included discussions of shipping and handling costs. Anti-abortion groups and politicians have called for an investigation, alleging human organ trafficking. That's about it.Mattnad (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good summary of the situation. As this develops, we'll be able to refine it and choose which of the many sources to use. Because of the enormous coverage, backlash, and exposure of the devious nature of the dishonest sting, we should also comment on the organizations and individuals involved in the sting.

This could end up being a paragraph, but the gist will still be the same: Planned Parenthood did nothing wrong and they were video taped by unethical people, and the sting backfired. This is very similar to such stings carried out by James O'Keefe and the Breitbart people. Their lies were also exposed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Mattnad's basic gist (though "Planned Parenthood director" is not the right title). --JBL (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"very similar to such stings carried out by James O'Keefe" - indeed, the guy running these was the research director for Live Action when they carried out the 2007 hidden camera recordings. -- Callinus (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a "backfired sting" and if you openly state Planned Parenthood did nothing wrong there is obviously a lack of neutral POV. I do agree with Mattnad's suggestions but I see it is vastly different to what is posted currently. -- 190.6.159.37 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "backfired" isn't the best word. Failed or botched might be better. A successful sting exposes illegal activities. In this case, only the strongly edited version which was released makes it appear that illegal activities occurred. When the whole video is seen, and those statements are seen in context, the deceptive nature of the editing is very apparent. Therefore the sting not only failed to expose wrongdoing, it became apparent that it was botched, so maybe "backfired" is a good word after all.

It's an example of a Pyrrhic victory, since the initial impression was that Planned Parenthood had been caught with their pants down. Once more information came out and the full video was available, it became apparent that the perpetrators are the ones with their pants down. Note that the discussion of whether abortion is wrong or not is another subject entirely, and is not part of this matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

But you are indeed failing to mention that the same Center for Medical Progress released both the edited and full version, the same day (July 14), and were both uploaded within minutes of each other. So there wasn't anything hidden. If you want to talk about how print, web and social media exploded and took it "too far" with just the edited version, then that is just another can of worms. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV - sting definition

The article Sting operation opens "In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person committing a crime" - the term sting has the imputation that criminal offenses were caught by an official law enforcement body. Anti-abortion activists are not law enforcement, and while the videos are edited to give the imputation of laws being broken, later investigations have frequently turned up only deceptive editing. The term "sting" should not be used in the title section. -- Callinus (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Sting" has other applications and context aside from law enforcement activities. Even the article you cite states it's typically law-enforcement (but not exclusively), and then provides several non-law enforcement examples. Reliable sources have referred to the Planned Parenthood activities as "stings" as well.[37] [38]. It's an apt description. I'll add that just because no laws were broken, that hasn't prevented those sympathetic to the pro-life agenda from opening legal investigations following them. Perhaps, "failed stings" is more precise for the title? Mattnad (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I just prefer "Undercover recordings" which is VER and not likely to start a shit fight on a 1RR article, unlike "failed stings" -- Callinus (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, but we had a discussion about this very section name a 2-3 years ago (gah... has it been that long?) and we settled on Stings because that's how reliable sources described them. Also, when you look at the other examples, in one of them they went to over 40 clinics trying to get the response they needed for video. Undercover suggests a long-term, insider relationship rather than the more opportunistic attempts in some of these. However, right now it's just you and me discussing. If it's that important to you, you can set an RFC and get other inputs. It has been very longstanding as "stings" which is why I'd recommend you get other input and alignment.Mattnad (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sanger and abortion

Based on the sources, I think the current text (Professor JR) is leaning too hard on the "Sanger opposed abortion" thing. (At her article too, but I don't have that one watchlisted.) This source indicates that she saw contraception as far preferable to abortion, but didn't have much of a moral problem with the latter, and that some of the rhetoric about it in her public work seems to be aimed at getting people to prefer contraception. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Okay, so you think you understand better what she meant by what she wrote, than what she herself says in what she actually wrote and published. That's a bit of a stretch. . . . -- Professor JR (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a weight issue. Sanger has her own article so why not elaborate there? Unless your goal is to tar PP today with it's founder's opinions. Mattnad (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It's too much weight given to Sanger's views, using Sanger's own words. Sanger said and wrote many things, some contradictory; we need to have WP:SECONDARY sources tell us whether the quote is significant. Even with secondary sources, the problem remains one of undue weight on Sanger, especially when we have a biographical article on her. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I surrender -- but will make two points here, and have a question:

1. - PP, not I, is who always touts their connection with Margare Sanger in all their publicity materials.

2. - Nonetheless, they did fire her from their chairmanship, mostly over disagreements vis-a-vis their policy on abortions (something not mentioned normally in their publications.)

My question: I didn't accuse User:Mattnad, or anyone else of trying to advance the case for PP by tarring anyone else, so why would that user feel it necessary to accuse me of trying to tar anyone with what are just factual statements? It may be User:Mattnad's Freudian-slip-bias for PP showing here, rather than any particular POV bias on my part. Professor JR (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my comment. This article has had a lot of anon's coming in and adding lot's of text about Sanger's unsavory ideas in the past. My bad.Mattnad (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

We should be deferring to secondary sources rather than to users' interpretations of primary sources - and this case is a prime illustration of why, because, to be pedantic, I must point out that the cited page is Sanger explaining what she told women to encourage them to pursue contraception options, not what she believed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Professor JR: again, your analysis of Sanger's writings does not override the analysis of reliable secondary sources. You need to review WP:NPOV and stop crying "POV" every time someone makes an edit that adheres to sourcing policy (like, uh, not an op-ed from the Family Research Council in a substandard paper called "Margaret Sanger, Racist Eugenicist Extraordinatire"), per WP:NPOV, but doesn't suit your arbitrary and subjective view of what would be neutral. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Statistics

I updated the number of clinics and affiliates. Did I cite my references correctly? (It was the Planned Parenthood website). If not, what did I do wrong?

Second video released by The Center for Medical Progress

In this second video released July 21, Mary Gatter, President of the Medical Directors’ Council and Medical Director for San Gabriel and Pasadena, California for Planned Parenthood [39] "...admits that in prior fetal tissue deals, Planned Parenthood received payment in spite of incurring no cost", "...suggests modifying the abortion procedure to get more intact fetuses" while "seems aware this violates rules governing tissue collection". [40] Very interesting when she says "I want a Lamborghini." Please do watch the whole video if you are afraid of missing something. [41]

Some popular sources would be: PBS [42], Washington Post [43], New York Times [44], Washington Times [45], Time [46], amongst many others.

If we want to balance this coverage, a source like FactCheck.org could be included [47]200.42.237.185 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, FactCheck.org is a good source. However, what that site says and what you post from that site are on two completely opposite sides of the issue. I think if this article is to be balanced more toward the honest truth (as it should be) then a site like FactCheck.org is perfect so long as the site isn't used to support biased claims. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added an NPOV tag to the section as only the CMP side of the issue is used, and the debunking by FactCheck is left out. This amounts to a gross WP:SYNTH violation by using a source to present a conclusion or impression which is the opposite of what the source says: "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The section needs strong editing for balance. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times reference already used discusses the second video. ([48]). If anything is missing, it's coverage of the upcoming videos on sickle cell anaemia and questions over the race of patients. (AP) -- Callinus (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, then why pray tell, do you delete instead of adding or "strong editing" as you call it? 200.42.237.185 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

CMP main article and summary style - recentism and due weight

The article Center for Medical Progress (political organization) does not currently have a 1RR restriction, or semiprotection.

The CMP article has substantial room to grow and doesn't have issues of due weight and recentism that will affect this page. Ideally, Summary style means that most of the in-depth content should go in that article and only a summary of the content, which means that lengthy quotes about political figures need to be condensed by reliable secondary sources, not include primary sources of quotes directly. -- Callinus (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. The recent additions by IP 200.42.237.185 and by Professor JR were too much. They were removed, and rightly so. Perhaps some of that material, balanced and neutral of course, can put into the CMP article. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The CMP article should have a 1RR restriction, and it should not be used as a coatrack for stuff about PP that didn't belong here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: - The CMP page itself is not semi protected and has room to discuss each video released (if that is considered DUE by editors on the page), which this page certainly doesn't, and IP users and trolls above are agitating for inclusion of blow by blow coverage of each video release which belongs on the CMP page if anywhere. There is precedent in content on the NPR undercover videos appearing on the James O'Keefe#NPR video (spring 2011) page (11 paragraphs) while NPR#Ronald Schiller comments is a single paragraph. There's nothing wrong with having 11+ paragraphs on the CMP page evaluating political reactions and journalistic coverage and only two (or so) on the PP page, and with IP being canvassed I'd much rather they get sent to grow the CMP page. -- Callinus (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we would like to ask for more experienced editors who can add in a neutral POV manner to consider whether it is worth of inclusion that all, I'll repeat, all the Republican Party Candidates for President have referred to this topic. None of that is shown here. Included are 2 M.D.'s within that group. It has been removed by the insistence of one or two editor who feel very strongly in favor of Planned Parenthood. At the least they should stay away from this conflict then. I am also surprised to see the amount of of free speech restriction going on on this hotly debated topic. This is not a personal article to hide a global view. FactCheck.org, for example, show's direct sources to these candidates, in which one of them can easily be the next President of the United States, and this addition has been deleted without so much as modifying it or improving it. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a hot topic now, and will settle down eventually. For a while I was trying to get balance on the Live Action page, and an editor was determined to make it POV. I didn't bother edit warring on it. Instead I let it sit for a while and then did a clean up, particularly on items that had no reliable sources at at (dead or invented links, primary source material like youtube postings etc.). Sometimes it's better to let the POV pushers do their thing, and then they go away and experienced editors can do a clean-up. In a month, this will be a footnote once the politicians move on to other items for "outrage".Mattnad (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agreeing with you. Granted, it is very troublesome the extent that long-timers go to overprotect articles as a way to prevent open discussion. Blatantly deleting comments that have been sourced instead of correcting them is akin to censorship. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Several donor companies distancing themselves from Planned Parenthood after videos were released

According to The Daily Signal, a news outlet owned by The Heritage Foundation, "Representatives from Coca-Cola, Ford Motor Co. and Xerox say they’ve asked Planned Parenthood to remove their names as corporate donors to the embattled organization." also "By Thursday (23 July) morning, Planned Parenthood removed every company name listed as a donor." All of this "...comes in the wake of two undercover videos that showed Planned Parenthood executives talking about the sale of fetal body parts." Sources:[49] and [50] 200.42.237.185 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Or, in other words, nothing new: no RS, nothing that anyone will care about in a few weeks. --JBL (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So the fact that there is recently submitted legislation to defund Planned Parenthood is "nothing new". Real legislation being discussed in the U.S. Congress due to these videos does not warrant even the slightest inclusion? The fact is that this particular piece of legislation "...has the backing of 136 Republican cosponsors along with one Democrat, Rep. Dan Lupinski of Illinois." So we should still keep this under wraps even when 32% of the US House of Representatives are backing this bill? How's that for a neutral POV! Sources: [51] and [52] 200.42.237.185 (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a developing story, with lots of political posturing and attempts to score short-term cheap points, and it matters not which party does it; facts have little to do with the long term consequences. We are WP:NOTNEWS. We'll get to this and it will be covered, but we're waiting for some of the dust to settle.

The end result may resemble what happened to ACORN. Even though the organization was cleared of wrongdoing, and James O'Keefe's deception was exposed, the political fall out was enough to destroy an organization which did a lot of good. The people ended up losing, but some GOP politicians scored some cheap points. The parallels are very similar, and some of the actors are the same. As editors we must be patient, keep on collecting what RS say, and we'll be able to get the big picture and develop some good content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ummh . . . do you ever make comments simply designed to improve an article or do they always contain a pro-Planned Parenthood or pro-whatever-organization-I-like-and-anti-any-organization-I-dislike message?? 68.0.207.169 (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist. Striking comments. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally! I knew I couldn't be the only one! BullRangifer, please do take this is as constructive criticism but it seems you have done a lot of research regarding the originators of the undercover videos and posted a lot of reasons why you personally believe nothing else should be added until "the dust is settled" while using the Wikipedia is not Newspaper argument [53] yet this talk page has already established the notability of these events and you seem to ignore this. Other hotly debated topics like the Arab–Israeli conflict are constantly updated, with the most recent news and without protecting said article. A word of caution, there must be no cabal, no elites. We cannot allow this and other articles where you have clearly shown a non-neutral POV to fall under censorship just because you don't like the comments. Perhaps you should allow other editors, even if they don't your vast experience, to handle this. Remember that "writing for the enemy" is part of being a good editor [54]. A healthy reading on the problems of having a Wikipedia Cabal is in order [55] .200.42.237.185 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, why the attempt to eliminate opposing POV? Do you not see that you have consistently supported ONLY the CMP POV, and misused FactCheck.org sources, even they totally debunked CMP's actions? It sounds a bit hypocritical for you to object to me, or the other POV supported by RS, or to assume bad faith of other editors by implying a cabal. We should all be able to sit at the same table and create content. If you can't do that, I wonder why. In light of your hypocrisy, maybe you should read WP:POT, because you are guilty of that which you accuse others. How about sticking to discussing content and not other editors.

I don't deny the notability of the events, and I've made it plain that we will cover this. A rapidly moving event with BLP issues must be handled carefully. Be patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could both together read WP:AGF and you stop assuming I am out here to get you. I believe I have provided both several sources and proposed text, while you haven't any. Instead of randomly deleting comments and additions please do try to add to the debate, not pick on new members. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Planned Parenthood by User:Binksternet - July 2015

@Binksternet: With regard to your edit to Planned Parenthood reverting the previous edit that generally refined and improved on one section in line with Sanger writings (in the summary for which you stated: "nobody says Sanger was promoting sex... People were already having sex! Sanger was promoting birth control") have you ever troubled to read Sanger? I'm afraid that you are mistaken in your summary (except for the part about "People were already having sex!") In any event, the text you reverted didn't say that she was "promoting sex" as you suggest, but read: "to promote birth control to allow women to engage in sex without fear of conception (emphasis added), which is straight out of Sanger, even if you might possibly prefer that it wasn't. Perhaps you should take look at both Sanger's writings, and Wikipedia:POV, if you wish to constructively contribute to discussions about Ms. Sanger in Wikipedia articles. --- Professor JR (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Professor_JR, please provide a diff of my alleged edit. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Sorry, have corrected the inadvertent, wrong "ping", and title of this section. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Professor JR, I think you meant to ping @Binksternet:. Marauder40 (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Marauder40: Thanks. Have made necessary corrections. Appreciate your pointing out the error. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I already responded to this same discussion point posted to my talk page. WP:SECONDARY sources are needed rather than Professor JR's own interpretation of Sanger's writings. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"organ" terminology

@Elizium23: The huffpo used to source the statement "Planned Parenthood said that they may donate fetal organs" only uses the word "organ" once. The PP statement is from 20 Jul, states "Offers from impersonators posing as health care professionals to pay various sums of money for tissue or organs, from $100 to $1,600 – offers which could be illegal, and which Planned Parenthood staff refused" - the term "organ" is not used by Planned Parenthood to describe their activities, and it is not VER to describe PP as describing their activity as such (because the ref does not say so, and the ref quotes from a press release that does not say so). -- Callinus (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

We're going by what WP:RS talk about, and many of them comment on "fetal organs" because several are mentioned by name in the video. Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Elizium23. Hearts, lungs, livers, etc, are all organs, are are described as such by the source (Washington Post) in question, and other reliable sources. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I see the point being made and I've made an edit that hopefully addresses it. Elizium23 (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Elizium23: thanks for your edits. If AP uses terminology then it's appropriate for the sentence you added on Richards. -- Callinus (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Daily Dot - data breach

Dailydot reports a data breach by hacktivists - msnbc and reuters report a confirmation of sorts.

To avoid 1RR I'd like to propose language before inclusion:

On 27 July, a hacktivist told The Daily Dot they had breached the database of Planned Parenthood's website, releasing email addresses of employees.

Or some such. -- Callinus (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it could use a little more context. Who is this group? What is their motivation? What is the response of PP/authorities? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Art Caplan

User:Geogene deleted the following line of text:

Using a different abortion procedure to better harvest organs from the child instead of keeping the mother's well-being as the sole criterion in choosing the procedure is a "classic violation" of a long-held, industry-wide standard for abortion providers in the United States, medical ethitcist Arthur Caplan told the Washington Post.

Geogene explained it in the edit summary thusly: "Caplan did not say that Planned Parenthood does in fact do that, he was speaking hypothetically." The Washington Post story makes clear that Caplan's comments came "after reviewing the video," and that he is talking about Planned Parenthood. Read the 13th paragraph (where Dr Gatter speaks of a "switch" in procedures), through the 18th paragraph, whence Caplan's quotation comes, and then on to the 19th paragraph. I think it is obvious about whom the pro-choice professor is speaking. However, if there is a better way to phrase it, I am all ears. Do you have a suggestion, Geogene? Anyone else? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A clinic that did choose to perform one procedure over another....would be... is obviously a conditional construct. Geogene (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, well how would you prefer to word it then? In the Post's transcript of the video, Dr. Gatter says she "wouldn’t object" to switching the procedure to make sure they got an intact organ, and the story says "A portion of the new video shows Gatter discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving fetal tissues." Should we add either of that to the paragraph above? Then would it be clear enough that Caplan was speaking to Gatter's hypothetical? --BrianCUA (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be using the source selectively. Note that Gatter also said, “Well, now you’re shading into the area of you’re paying me to do something that’s not right. So that’s not what I want to talk about!” which is right above the Caplan hypothetical. Geogene (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will ask for a third time on a suggestion for wording. It is the ethics of the transaction that is in question, and we have a bio-ethicist talking about it. How would you phrase it to make it more clear? --BrianCUA (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If it isn't in the source, then no change in wording is going to fix it. There is some Caplan opinion that's usable, some wording to the effect that he's "not sure" the videos show what CMP (presumably) wants them to, but that they're "right up to the border" of what's legal/ethical and what isn't, and that PP needs to "rethink" what they're doing. I hate using quotes in articles but this may be a place for them. Geogene (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We cannot put words into Caplan's mouth. Whilst someone on the video may have talked about the possibility of changing procedures, without evidence that PP were actually changing procedures, Caplan's statement remains hypothetical. It would be synthesis to suggest otherwise. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, the Wikipedia article currently says: Videos also show officials discussing how they would use a different abortion procedure than they usually would to better preserve the organs.[137] Source 137 is the same one we're discussing here, I know it's not in there, but maybe in other sources? Geogene (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Caplan bit must be removed as it is conjecture, a what-if scenario that is not proved to be taking place. Planned Parenthood is not shown to be changing their procedure in the manner described by Caplan; he's simply warning that if they did so, it would be a "classic violation" of bioethics. It's not an actual issue, so it's not significant here. Binksternet (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet is right, so I removed it. This speculation isn't appropriate content. The previous sentence may need revision to not leave the impression that PP actually did improperly change procedures. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we are getting a little pedantic here. If you are OK with saying that "A portion of the videos appear to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure," then what is wrong with a single sentence that says doing so would be unethical? Numerous reliable sources do so. If it is good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for us?

I don't want to make this text too long, but how does the following strike you?

Portions of the videos appear to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving the fetal tissues, with one saying she "wouldn't object" to doing so, and another says that "most providers" will use ultrasound to avoid "crushing" the internal organs. If, in fact, procedures are altered to better harvest the organs, instead of keeping the mother's well-being as the sole criterion in choosing the procedure, medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said that this would be a "classic violation" of a long-held, industry-wide standard for abortion providers in the United States.

Would that satisfy you? In the first video, according to the Post, Dr. Nucatola says "most providers" will in fact do things differently to get the organs. That goes beyond speculation.--BrianCUA (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No. The Caplan bit is too easily misinterpreted by the reader who may jump to the conclusion that PP is indeed changing their procedure, when they are not. Inserting the Caplan bit is an attempt to lay wrongdoing on PP where there is no actual wrongdoing. A discussion about possibly changing the procedure is not important in an encyclopedia article; only an actual change would be encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This continues to be synth, trying to spin not-very-congenial facts to a particular conclusion. This is an encyclopedia article about Planned Parenthood; it is hard to imagine that a hypothetical discussion of what would happen if X were to do Y could ever belong in an encyclopedia article about X, absent some well-sourced claim that X actually does do (or intends to do) Y. --JBL (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think it would be confusing for a Wikipedia reader, but not a reader of the Washington Post, Binksternet? Given that Dr. Nucatola says multiple times that they do in fact change the procedure, how does this work for you?

Portions of the videos show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving the fetal tissues. One says she "wouldn't object" to doing so, and another says that "most providers" will use ultrasound to avoid "crushing" the internal organs. The latter adds that "some people will actually try to change the presentation" of the fetus to the breech birth in order to get an intact head. If, in fact, procedures are altered to better harvest the organs, instead of keeping the mother's well-being as the sole criterion in choosing the procedure, medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said that this would be a "classic violation" of a long-held, industry-wide standard for abortion providers in the United States.

Here we have a direct quotation from the doctor saying that "some people will actually" change their procedure in order to get intact tissue. We are no longer speaking in hypotheticals. Are you satisfied? --BrianCUA (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no way to make this not synth. Caplan was speaking hypothetically. Ergo, any attempt to make his comments actually about PP is, and always will be, synth. The fact that you're trying to string together two-word quotations should be a hint that this is not going to fly. --JBL (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not synth. I'm not taking Caplan's comments from a completely unrelated topic and trying to shoehorn them in here. He made those comments "said after reviewing the video." He is clearly talking about PP. His opinion here is preceded by "If, in fact, procedures are altered..." It is not misrepresentative in any way. It is not confusing to any reader, at least no more than it is in the source. I am going to add the material, and if you object we can seek a third opinion. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Immediately after posting the request for comment below, it occurred to me that perhaps it would be easier if we just found a different source. I was looking for a different person to speak to the ethics, but Caplan seems to have been asked by several news agencies. This story from CNN says that a very specific part of the video troubled Caplan, the one where procedures are changed to obtain the organs. How does everyone feel about this:

Portions of the videos show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving the fetal tissues. One said that abortion providers will change the position of the fetus to obtain specific tissues, and that they are "very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, I'm not going to crush that part." In response to this portion of the video, medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said that changing procedures would be unacceptable and that the abortion provider's "sole concern has to be the mother and her health."

Any better?--BrianCUA (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Is this WP:SYNTH?

Is the follwoing statement WP:SYNTH?

Portions of the videos show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving the fetal tissues.

One official says she "wouldn't object" to doing so, and another says that "most providers" will use ultrasound to avoid "crushing" the internal organs. The latter adds that "some people will actually try to change the presentation" of the fetus to the breech birth position in order to get an intact head. If, in fact, procedures are altered to better harvest the organs, instead of keeping the mother's well-being as the sole criterion in choosing the procedure, medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said that this would be a "classic violation" of a long-held, industry-wide standard for abortion providers in the United States.

References

One side maintains that Arthur "Caplan was speaking hypothetically" and thus is SYNTH. The other contends that his comments came "after reviewing the video." A fuller discussion can be found above. --BrianCUA (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not an accurate summary of the discussion. Further, this would be better aimed at Project Medicine. Abortion is a medical topic, not a religious one. Geogene (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going for philosophy, given that this is a discussion about ethics. My second choice would have been society. Medicine may work, but since this is about the ethics of the procedure, not the procedure itself, I didn't think it was the best fit. I could be wrong.--BrianCUA (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• This summary seems pretty dubious. First of all, with regard to changing the position of the fetus to breech, the cited source (CNN) makes clear that "it is not clear if [the PP official] is speaking in general terms or if she is describing Planned Parenthood's methods." Somehow, in BrianCUA's text, this uncertainty is replaced with an unequivocal implication that Planned Parenthood countenances this approach. That's a disappointingly dishonest use of sources. MastCell ^Talk 01:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

In the Washington Post article, Nucatola is not speaking hypothetically, but about an actual change in procedure: "“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” she says... “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.... We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part...” Is that clear enough for you? --BrianCUA (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about—although, to be fair, you're simply mirroring the ignorance and laziness evident in most journalistic coverage of this controversy. Ultrasound is routinely used during surgical abortion, although it is not mandatory for uncomplicated cases. The use of ultrasound isn't a "change in procedure"; it's an acceptable and standard component of surgical technique, and the decision to use or not use ultrasound is generally left to the discretion of the gynecologist. If journalists weren't so lazy, they'd have figured this out themselves by doing 10 seconds of research, instead of chasing quotes from Art Caplan. For instance, the standards of care from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists state that "access to ultrasound is recommended but not routinely required" for surgical abortions, and that "ultrasound is commonly used to assess the uterus during and after vacuum aspiration" ([56]).

There is no additional risk to the woman as a result of ultrasound use. If a woman indicates a wish to donate fetal tissue to research, then the use of ultrasound guidance to help fulfill that wish is entirely consistent with medical ethical principles, particularly that of autonomy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is very little interest in learning or conveying factual medical information here, and instead there's an intensely politicized ignorance at work in the rush to cynically manipulate the content of these tapes. But to return to Wikipedia-speak: no, the sources don't support the wording you've proposed. MastCell ^Talk 03:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• These key words need to be examined:

"If, in fact, procedures are altered to better harvest the organs, instead of keeping the mother's well-being as the sole criterion in choosing the procedure,.."

The "If, in fact" and the "instead of keeping" are worded to imply these are the only alternatives, when in fact there is nothing wrong with altering a procedure if the mother's well-being is not endangered. This whole speculative type of accusation against PP is not encyclopedic, and it's deceptive because it infers something not found in the evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I generally stay away from controversial topics when editing, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. I thought that an RFC was designed to get outside opinions. Your name appears all over this page. If we are allowed to comment here, then I will add that the source says that "Altering procedures in order to get tissue in the best condition would be a "big no-no," and that "he made it clear that any deviation from normal procedures is unacceptable." The claim in found in the source. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, anyone can comment in an RfC. We just hope that more voices will be added to the ones already known here. (BTW, I have made relatively few comments on this page, compared to many others.)

There are at least four sources above. From which one are you quoting? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Bull. Both quotations come from the CNN story. With that out of the way, do you have any other concerns? --BrianCUA (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• NO, not SYNTH. Not even close. Synthesis is something editors do. Here, the hypothetical is being offered by the person being quoted, not by Wikipedia editors. Those claiming this is SYNTH should be considered for Trouting. Eclipsoid (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Undue emphasis. The proffered text gives too much credence to mere discussion of procedural issues. The only thing that would have been important would be if PP had changed its actual procedures. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As shown to MastCell above, there is a direct quotation showing that procedures actually are changed. Furthermore, the videos are all about ethics of changing procedures. Procedural issues are thus central to the impact of the videos, not a tertiary issue that can be waved away. --BrianCUA (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not exactly SYNTH per Eclipsoid, but still clearly inadequate wording per MastCell and BullRangifer. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Looks like WP:Synth. An editor wanted to add a very similar sentence in a section below, and I took a look myself. As proposed, it's not only Synth, but purely speculative and therefor not appropriate at this time.Mattnad (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe WP:Synth, but definitely undue - per BullRangifer & per Binksternet, respectively. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding a Planned Parenthood detractors image?

This article currently features 7 images, including the logo, out of which 3 are of Planned Parenthood supporters. A moot point I believe since one of those pictures is actually shown under the "Controversy and criticism" section [57] which should, by virtue of being under a "Criticism" section, be of protesters or detractors. Perhaps a picture such as [58] or [59] could be used. A candidate for deletion would be the same picture showing "Planned Parenthood supporters in Columbus, OH" featured under the "Criticism" section [60]

Proof of notoriety is that on July 28 "An estimated 12,000 Americans in as many as 65 U.S. cities took to the streets Tuesday to demand an end to federal funding of Planned Parenthood..." [61], including noted personalities such as Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, amongst others [62]. I am sure somebody will try to argue that this is "posturing" but 65 anti-Planned Parenthood rallies is hardly posturing anymore.

Granted, I am sure a more experienced editor can easily find a WP conforming picture. A simple Google search can show us tons of options. i.e. [63] 200.42.237.185 (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Key issue: an image has to be available under a free license. Geogene (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Images can only be included if they're on Commons and have an appropriate license. [64] -- Callinus (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can an image not be used and source cited, as with text sources? Juicebox 90 (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NFCCP. JBL (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add: the substance of the suggestion (replacing one of the two "supporters at a rally" photos with a protest of some sort) seems reasonable to me. --JBL (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

flickr

Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Planned Parenthood under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa

See Commons:Flickr files about uploading. -- Callinus (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I uploaded a photo of protesters I found using a Creative Commons search since I couldn't find exactly what I was looking for on Wikimedia Commons. Apparently the license there is incompatible with WMC use. That, User:Professor JR, is why I switched it out with one on WMC. I agree it isn't as good, but it's the best we have right now. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If the new photo isn't as good as the old, isn't the old photo actually "the best we have right now"? Eclipsoid (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

At least the article now has 6 images, out of which 2 are of Planned Parenthood supporters. Luckily, with time and the effort we have seen here of several editors we might get an image that's up to WP standards which shows detractors too. Perhaps any of the following? (Note: They were all found using Google Image search with "site:commons.wikimedia.org abortion" and "site:commons.wikimedia.org planned parenthood" as queries.

[65], [66], [67], [68], [69]

Also this possible query brings a lot of options that might feature several images that are up to WP standards: [70] 200.42.237.185 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would we even need/want an image of the group's detractors? This article is about planned parenthood, not the people/groups who oppose it. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an important part of the story of PP that it is a target of political opposition; a group protesting in front of a PP clinic would be a great illustration of this. (If you look at e.g. the article Westboro Baptist Church (chosen as the first example that came to mind of another group that attracts protests) you'll see a picture of their church, a bunch of pictures of members of the group and then, down in the section counter protests, a couple of pictures of people protesting against them.) The first protestor picture (since removed as non-free?) had a nice awning with visible PP logo in the background; I think something like that is probably necessary to make a good illustration for this article (and I don't think "generic anti-choice protestors" is useful). In my opinion one such photo would be a great addition to the article; more than one is unnecessary. --JBL (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This page needed more balance, a fact which is now being noted and addressed. Juicebox 90 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with balance. (And to whom are you responding, anyhow?) --JBL (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't do tit-for-tat editing to create a false "balance". This image would simply be a relevant addition to that section. A perfectly proper thing to do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased view on Center for Medical Progress undercover videos

The paragraph seems defensive of Planned Parenthood. In particular, the section says Planned Parenthood employees appeared to be "discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving the fetal tissues". The actual content of the videos showed Planned Parenthood employees discussing procedures already in place designed to preserve fetal tissue during an abortion. I think this part needs to be changed to something similar to " A portion of the videos appear to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing how abortion procedures are altered for the purpose of preserving fetal tissue."

Furthermore, the quote included near the end ("Well, now you’re shading into the area of you’re paying me to do something that’s not right. So that’s not what I want to talk about!") seems to give undue weight to one side of the issue. I propose removing this quote altogether, or balancing it with other quotes from the videos to give a more neutral summary of their content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.230.207 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Answering your first paragraph/point, I don't think they were altering procedures according to what reliable sources say (rather than opinions). It's the same procedure but they take care not to damage certain tissues or organs. On your second paragraph, it's hardly undue weight. It's simply a quote that a reliable source felt was important to include as evidence that Planned Parenthood puts the needs of their patients first. It's far far less than entire sections later devoted to congressional investigations etc. (if we're talking about weight/balance).Mattnad (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've pointed out repeatedly above, sources such as CNN do say that changing the procedure, which is spoken of in actual and not hypothetical terms, to not damage the fetal organs is a "big no-no" and that "any deviation from normal procedures is unacceptable" since the doctor's "sole concern has to be the mother and her health." As to the balance issue, there is an outside expert who is defending PP. I don't think an outside voice that is critical is undue. --11:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the CNN link. It does not say "" A portion of the videos appear to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing how abortion procedures are altered for the purpose of preserving fetal tissue." It's positioned as a hypothetical in the CNN article based on a quoted opinion. The way you've written this, it's conclusive and not supported by the source.Mattnad (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Nuctola says in that source: "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, I'm not going to crush that part." She is speaking in the past tense about something that has already been done and perfected. How is that hypothetical? --BrianCUA (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

She's not referring necessarily to altering the procedure but doing it in a way that doesn't damage certain tissues.. The CNN quote that's discussing the hypothetical doesn't refer to her statement. Bringing them together as I think you'd like would be WP:OR via synthesis. This has been discussed in the section above. Mattnad (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow. They are using ultrasound to ensure that they don't crush the fetal organs. Most of the time they wouldn't use ultrasound and wouldn't care which part of the body they crushed. That is a change in procedure. Even if it isn't, it shows that there a concern for something other than the mother and her health, namely harvesting the fetal organs. What do you think of this?

Portions of the videos show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the ethics of altering an abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving the fetal tissues. One said they will use ultrasound to guide their forceps to avoid crushing the desired fetal organs. In response to this portion of the video, medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said that changing procedures would be unacceptable and that the abortion provider's "sole concern has to be the mother and her health."

Does that work for you? If not, would you like to take a crack at copyediting it to make it acceptable?--BrianCUA (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's way overweight and unneeded. My wife is a radiologist and she told me that Ultrasound is commonly used in later term abortions to ensure a safe and complete extraction of all tissue and User:Mastcell has separately made the same point elsewhere. So instead of having dueling sources that adds a lot of nothing to the article, we should act as editors here rather than POV pushers.Mattnad (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your wife's opinion is what's undue here. Please be mindful of WP:NOTFORUM. Eclipsoid (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. This editor has two different sections going on this topic on the talk page, and as I pointed out Mast Cell provided a links that demonstrate the same. As an aside, abortion foes have created legislation the requires ultrasound before ANY procedure in some states. This issue is a red herring, undue, and encyclopedic. If the editor wants to create an article on the ethics of ultasounds in abortion matters, he's welcome to, but it doesn't belong here.Mattnad (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the Post article went out of its way to re-state as a hypothetical: "A clinic that changed procedures...would be". Source avoided saying that they did in fact change their procedures. Caplan also avoided directly accusing them of anything in that source, though it made it clear that he thinks they're on dangerous ground. But whether it's illegal or not is something that can only be decided by a court. It's true that Wikipedia is biased against accusing people of crimes without unambiguous sources, see WP:HARM. Geogene (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Camille Paglia quote

The quote from Camille Paglia strikes me as a strange choice. She's a literature and cultural studies scholar, not an expert on medical ethics, so why are we quoting her opinion on whether Planned Parenthood breached medical ethics? Shouldn't we be quoting a medical ethicist? GabrielF (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's too much emphasis on this recent spate of video releases. I removed the quote, along with a lot of other emphasis on the recent videos. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn't, however, remove the quote from Jim Vaught. If one isn't undue, then neither should be the other. If we are going to get rid of one, we should get rid of both. However, I don't think a single paragraph with outside voices is really WP:UNDUE, as long as it is balanced. I would prefer a medical ethics as well, but there seems to be a group of editors who are working hard to prevent any critical voices from appearing in this article. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, but it seems like it'd be creating a false balance to equate views of president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories with those of an otherwise uninvolved cultural critic, especially when they not cited for same subject or in same section. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Jim Vaught quote is completely different from the Paglia quote. Vaught is an expert in the collection of biological tissue for research purposes. He was addressing a narrow question that was directly within his expertise (whether a particular dollar figure is reasonable for cost recovery for providing tissue). On the other hand, Paglia was making a very broad and emotional comment on a subject that she has no expertise in. The two are not comparable.GabrielF (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Indiana Clears Planned Parenthood

Interesting:

• Indiana Clears Planned Parenthood Of Wrongdoing In Investigation Sparked By Deceptively-Edited Videos

If anyone objects to a partisan source like Media Matters, they are no more partisan than The Center for Medical Progress, so using them would actually create needed balance. Whatever the case, this refers to RS which can be used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am appalled that a long-time editor like you would equate using Media Matters, an organization that has a stated mission of "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"[71], on the same level as the Center for Medical Progress, the organization that this same article refers to as such that "...released videos...".

If you want to balance the usage of obviously anti-Planned Parenthood media sources, then please do so. But the originator of the news, the creator of these undercover videos is not on the same level as the obviously partisan Media Matters. I am pretty sure you understand how this could be seen as proof that you are trying to advance a political agenda here? 200.42.237.185 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

On the spectrum of reliability, Media Matters is not terrible. Yes they have a POV, but so do all of the politicians we quote in this section. The Center for Medical Progress is less reliable in that it's a single issue advocacy organization. Mattnad (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

200.42.237.185, dang, I almost wish I had planned the above as baiting, because you certainly responded as if it were, and took the bait. You reaction shows that better reading comprehension is needed here. Your assumptions of bad faith blinded you to the right interpretation.

My first point was that Media Matters is more reliable than CMP (Mattnad is correct), and we use CMP a lot. My secondary and main point ("Whatever the case") is that the MM article contains better RS we could use. So read the MM article, find those good sources, and use them. I'm not suggesting we actually use MM, but we certainly could because it's more mainstream and reliable than the bogus CMP, which possibly committed borderline fraud in its initial IRS listing as a "non-profit" and had to change its description to avoid problems. Its fringe status and deceptive nature is being exposed more and more. Talk about discredited!

A fringe organization like CMP, using fringe sources like itself, certainly isn't exempted from the use of countering sources with an opposing POV, sources which are less dubious and are above board, not secretive and created for deception.

It's rather ironic that a supporter of CMP would object to the presence of other editors who hold an opposing POV, because that argument is a boomerang, and it shows that you are the one "trying to advance a political agenda here" (quoting yourself, hence the need for you to read POT). That's not a very wikipedian attitude, because editors with all POV are welcome here. I'm not telling anyone on your side of the issue that they shouldn't edit here because of their personal POV, yet you dare to do just that.

So try to improve the atmosphere here by following these steps: stop the trolling, read WP:POT, stop attacking other editors, and stick to dealing with content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Media Matters is a partisan source, and so ideally we should avoid or limit its use. The situation in Indiana has been covered by independent, reliable sources, including local and national media, so we should use those sources instead of Media Matters. (As an aside, Indiana has been overwhelmed by one of the worst HIV crises in recent memory, so its government's focus on manufacturing trumped-up reasons to shut down one of the state's largest providers of reproductive-health services is mind-boggling. But I digress). MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What was left out is important

Here's some of what was edited out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

non productive exchange
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tumbler BullRangifer? Seriously? I'll quote myself, from a July 26 response to you on this very same Talk Page, while referring to this perceived non-neutral POV you seem to be advocating: "...But you are indeed failing to mention that the same Center for Medical Progress released both the edited and full version [videos], the same day (July 14), and were both uploaded within minutes of each other. So there wasn't anything hidden. If you want to talk about how print, web and social media exploded and took it "too far" with just the edited version, then that is just another can of worms". 200.42.237.185 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Bigger picture - this is most likely a flash in the pan typical of the partisan politicking around abortion. Yes a longer version has been reviewed, but selections from it have been used for political points. Unless an investigation finds that Planned Parenhood broke laws, it's not really that notable in the long run. So time will tell.Mattnad (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 200.42.237.185, what's "tumbler" supposed to mean? Is that an insult? Otherwise, if what was left out wasn't important, why did they create an edited version? They did it to make PP look bad, because the unedited version shows that those edits were very manipulative and deceptive. You know full well that the media didn't "take it too far". That was the reaction intended by CMP. They love it. But now even Republicans have acquitted PP of wrongdoing in this case, and CMP is discredited. It's a shame that CMP followed James O'Keefe's example of dishonesty. If CMP and anti-abortionists can't get their point across without resorting to deception, bombings, and murder, something's very wrong with their agenda. Maybe CMP's founder needs to follow his mentor's example and also be convicted in court. He really should spend some time behind bars. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This thread doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with editing the article, so perhaps we could all back away from the battleground approach a little bit. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It started as a suggestion providing evidence which could be included. So far so good. Then the attacks came. I'll hat that exchange. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Tumbler is not evidence. Eclipsoid (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, well, that depends what one means. But, the link in question is neither a secondary nor a reliable source. And unlike the Media Matters section above, there's no underlying RS here. --JBL (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah ha! Now I get it. The source above (which I'd never suggest as a RS for content) is MM's Tumblr account. I hadn't noticed that since I saw they are referring to the actual videos, which are a primary RS for documenting the content of the videos. They provide two MM sources which are a bit better (July 14. July 21), but still the original is the best. Obviously we wouldn't use any of those sources, but they provide information which can help editors in searching for secondary RS to document this. Those are the RS to use. The search for RS can start in odd places! -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood acquitted by Republicans? TIME.com says otherwise

A long-time editor pointed out above that "...now even Republicans have acquitted PP of wrongdoing in this case, and CMP is discredited." but just today 3 Republican Senators posted an Op-Ed in Time Magazine and Time.com: Rand Paul, Joni Ernst and James Lankford [72]

The 10 paragraph Op-Ed has very clear indications of the Congressional path the Center for Medical Progress video's and it's allegations towards Planned Parenthood are taking. It is a current and very notable since we have 3 Republican Senators, including one who is both a respected M.D. and Presidential Candidate for the US stating that "These videos are hard for anyone to defend, and they pull back the curtain on Planned Parenthood’s callous actions that strike the moral fabric of our society." and "The Senate will soon vote on a bill to redirect federal taxpayer money from Planned Parenthood to women’s health care at places like community health centers and hospitals...Our focus remains on ensuring that taxpayer dollars are utilized to protect federal funding for health services for women, which may include diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well-child care, contraceptives, prenatal and postnatal care, immunizations, cervical and breast cancer screenings and more."

Whether some editors think this is "just posturing" and that WP:NOTNEWS this definitely retains the qualities of WP:NOTE and reflects current intent from lawmakers. This stopped being political and is currently a policy directive from high-ranking members of Congress.

Personal opinions should not matter here and these lengthy processes whereupon we have constantly protected this article and not others which are more prone to incendiary debate (like Arab-Israeli Conflict, ISIL beheading incidents or Russia–Ukraine relations) seems to show that the majority of the editors paying attention to this specific article have a stronger opinion over what this article shows. Is this a sign of the other, more internationally minded yet current-events topics needing more sensible editors to constantly protect those articles? Or might it be, and pardon the insinuation, that his article already has way too many disruptions to illustrate a point? WP:NEEDSMOARDRAMA

Personal: Apologies to BullRangifer if he feels "trolled". That has never been the idea or purpose of these exchanges. I am not against Planned Parenthood at all but feel I need to play the role of devils advocate here since I am clearly seeing a silencing of the "right" akin to censoring. 190.6.159.37 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC) (I am 200.42.237.185 but on another city)

The Op-Ed may be a decent source for a sentence in the "Congressional investigations" section that the three senators authored a bill as a response to the videos, but not sure how useful it'd be beyond that. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

190.6.159.37 / 200.42.237.185, apology accepted. We just need to stop personalizing the debate, and then I'm sure we can all get along fine. I note this comment: "This stopped being political and is currently a policy directive from high-ranking members of Congress." No, it's still political. The GOP has been opposing PP for a long time. They oppose birth control and abortions, and it's been noted that this latest sting is just another event in the GOP's "War on Women". Now they may succeed in defunding PP (as they did with ACORN), even though only about 3% of PP's activities are related to abortion, and that part isn't even funded with federal funds. That would be illegal. So their defunding will only affect the largest activities, which are very useful and needed. No wonder a majority of women still defend PP, and this turns them against the GOP.

BTW, why not just create an account? Using multiple accounts isn't normally allowed, and if you have one account it won't matter where you are, you'll have more privacy, a whole lot more rights, great tools and scripts suddenly available, and more respect. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions BullRangifer. I have mostly been a lurker every site I roam, and I do try to contribute here and there (tiny edits, a source or two, small donations and whatnot) but someday I do have to get a username together. But I do disagree with you on Planned Parenthood's defunding as being part of a grander political scheme, even though it might very well fit. Here's why: Senator Rand Paul and Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson are both M.D.'s and have reached the conclusion that Planned Parenthood's funding should be brought to vote in very different ways. The first one is a respected Ophthalmologist while also being quite libertarian while the second one is one of the nation's most acclaimed Neurosurgeons but also is a deeply religious man. Also, if you like the topic on "War on Women", I'd also suggest you to read up on Ben Carson's views on it [73]...

Also, any idea why this topic is so prone to protection while the arguably more "debatable" and "hot button" topics I mentioned above are not? 190.6.159.37 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Folks, this is not a forum, it's for discussing actual or proposed changes to the article. --JBL (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

JBL, could you please then chime in on my unanswered question above? "any idea why this topic is so prone to protection while the arguably more "debatable" and "hot button" topics I mentioned above are not?" 200.42.237.185 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Op-Ed may be a decent source" - no, op-eds are never used when reliable secondary sources with fact checking by journalists are available. -- Callinus (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

An opinion piece authored by Republican Senators would seem to be an exceptionally good source for the opinions of those Senators. Perhaps even the best source available. (snicker) Eclipsoid (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

But only as evidence of their opinions, not as evidence of the opinion of the Senate in general. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

2002 Life Dynamics phone calls

The section on the 2002 Life Dynamics phone calls has been deleted several times, but the best explanation offered for it so far is that it is "not important." Could someone please explain to me why it is any less or more important that the other sting operations that get their own subsections? Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing came of those calls based on the sources I've seen. Not a whole lot different from other previous efforts. They could be added to the intro summary sentence as an example (whatever they were trying to show) with a footnote. But more than that is not needed, if at all. At most, it's a footnote. This was more than 10 years ago and it didn't do much. BTW, one of the sources, "Infowars" does not qualify as a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Infowars?! Isn't it blacklisted? If not it should be. It's only reliable for its own opinion. Delete it right away. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad is correct. Nothing came of the Life Dynamic phone campaign. It's more important to the Life Dynamics story than it is to Planned Parenthood's story. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Revenge editing

User:Briancua has made two edits which can only be seen as revenge edits, with no policy backing. The reasoning is spurious and doesn't even make sense (it's the opposite in one case). Such deletion of properly sourced content is normally considered vandalism:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=674415295&oldid=674414637
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planned_Parenthood&diff=674415384&oldid=674415295

Brian, please undo those edits and discuss them before trying such tricks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you considered them revenge edits or tricks. That was not my intention. I also thought I explained myself adequately in the edit summary, but I guess I didn't. My apologies. With both edits, I was shooting for WP:Balance. With the first, an accusation is leveled against CMP by PP, but CMP's defense was deleted. Personally I think that is a detail that is better suited for CMP's article than PP's, but didn't feel strongly enough about it to make an issue of it. However, when Binksternet deleted the defense, I didn't think it was NPOV to let the accusation stand. With the second, we have a quotation from an outside voice who is defending PP. Twice, my attempts to insert a quotation that is critical of PP have been deleted. Again, it violates NPOV to have one but refuse the other. Incidentally, Vaught is speaking just as hypothetically as Caplan, yet no one objected to him. Hope this clears things up about my intentions. --BrianCUA (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Vaught is speaking about the actual amount that PP says they actually charge; there is no sense in which this is hypothetical. --JBL (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

BrianCUA, apology accepted, and I'll AGF that you were trying to improve the article. I still don't agree with your justifications, as they are not based in policy, so I have restored both edits, but with a caveat in your favor: The first edit, according to you ("not fair to level the accusation, but delete the defense"), is missing a defense. The solution is to add that defense, not delete part of the properly sourced content. We don't delete such content, regardless of how out of balance it makes the article. That's censorship. Instead we add balancing content if it exists. If it doesn't, then that's the slant which real world RS present, and that usually represents the mainstream POV.

Fringe topics often end up with a very slanted article, simply because that slant is the closest way to represent the truth of the matter, represented by the existence of such a slant in the most RS. Alternative medicine (AM) articles are classic examples. AM promoters make unscientific claims, and the mainstream scientific evidence in RS trumps them and tramples them into the ground, so the article is clearly biased toward the mainstream view, simply because the mainstream has more accurate information, backed by research, and published in RS. AM only has anecdotes and false advertising made on fringe websites, and not published in RS. More accurate and reliable sources win out, and that's how it should be.

NPOV doesn't mean an article is without a dominant POV, or that there must be a tit-for-tat balancing act, or a false balance is present so it appears balanced. No, we document the POV which exist in RS, and fringe POV usually lose out to the stronger/dominant (and hopefully more accurate!) mainstream POV.

NPOV refers primarily to neutral editorial conduct, not neutered content. Editors are supposed to remain neutral in their editing. They must let the bricks fall where they may without trying to rearrange them into some sort of "balance" which is not present in the sum total of the RS used. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Other editors should weigh in on this since I don't see any ill intent from Briancua's additions. Many of the additions on this article seem to be pro-PP and that is definitely not WP:Balance. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting the "controversy" in context - to date, no laws have been broken according to ANY investigation. If that changes, then there's something there. But for now, it's partisan bloviating to the media. There's a lot of posturing going on, but that's politics. If we were being encyclopedic here, we'd have a short paragraph explaining what the videos were (secret video tapes of planned parenthood personnel describing tissue harvesting), and how politicians opposed on Planned Parenthood are using them. Since some editors feel inclined to add salacious, but irrelevant details, we head down a path of point/counterpoint.Mattnad (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism section is a shambles

Not related to the news of the moment being discussed elsewhere on this page, the section Planned_Parenthood#Abortion is in really sad shape. The second paragraph has a bunch of data on Planned Parenthood (in the first sentence) and abortion (in the second and third sentences), but no context at all. In particular, nothing in the paragraph has any indication of what the controversy or criticism is supposed to be. It would be nice if, some time after things cool down a bit, this could be written so that (1) it is actually about PP, and (2) it actually says something about the topic of the section. Possibly, it should be merged with the preceding paragraph somehow. Unless there is some specific link between the latter two sentences and PP that has been left out at the moment, they probably should go.

Also, in the third paragraph, the last two sentences have a he-said-she-said feel to them. Presumably there is some actual social science/epidemiology data out there about the relationship between contraceptive availability and abortion; it would be nice to have a statement about what experts believe. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

JBL, everything in that section deals directly with happenings at, and accusations pertaining to, Planned Parenthood. I do not see anything irrelevant, and the sub-headings clarify what is being discussed. They are relatively small, so that the info is easily read and digested. The paragraphs within the sub-headings also seem to be proportionately separated. The Abortion section is outlining different aspects OF the abortion controversy as it relates to PP, although I concur that perhaps this relationship could be more clearly stated for each detail, for purposes of clarification. The Controversy and Criticism section seems generally well organized to me. Juicebox 90 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly you should read the comment I wrote, not just the section heading. Then you can respond to the specific issues I raised with particular sentences. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible POV fork

An attempt has been made to spin off a separate article on the current controversy. As this appears to me to be a POVFORK, I've nominated it for deletion, encourage y'all to weigh in as you see fit. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it was actually spun off the CMP article. In any case, until it gets deleted, it definitely should be linked from here via the main article tag. StAnselm (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a POV FORK, but a proper WP:SPINOUT sub-article. Policy tells us to do this in such a case, and in this case it solves a problem for two articles at the same time, since this content is too long in both articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wording not up to WP standards

In the "Undercover recordings by pro-life activists" section, we see an instance of Planned Parenthood being named just "PP" which does not fit the criteria for a proper article ("...Three Congressional committees are making inquiries into PP practices")

There's also an apparent need to condense as much information as possible regarding this notable current event so several very short sentences have been added at the end of a paragraph instead of being part of a larger paragraph. 200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Little style, grammar, and wording problems like this tend to add up over time, especially in an article that is controversial and edited frequently. Usually the thing to do is just WP:FIXIT. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Be bold on a constantly protected article? 200.42.237.185 (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: the "PP," though, note that the first line of the lede specifically notes that this is a common abbreviation for Planned Parenthood. I think most readers will follow. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a recent addition; I for one would support changing all instances of "PP" to "PPFA," which is the dominant abbreviation used in the article. --JBL (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of recent coverage?

Recently we have seen several changes that edit out important and notable current information, even when it has been featured heavily in all the major news outlets. Examples:

• Under the "Congressional investigations" section there is no mention of the details Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 bill that has been voted in the U.S. Senate when a majority of the Senators were for this measure. Neither it's similar bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. It also fails to mention the notable fact that several Republican Party Presidential candidates who are also members of the U.S. Senate have voiced strong opinions against Planned Parenthood, have been co-sponsored bills to defund it and have voted against it. A small sentence would go a long to way to make sure WP:BALANCE prevails (that is to say these recent efforts are not "fringe" nor "extreme" when taken in the context of current US Politics.

• Under "State Investigations" there is a clear lack of updated content. No mention of Louisiana terminating its contract with Planned Parenthood clinics as a result of their very own investigations? [74]

200.42.237.185 (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bill you mentioned didn't pass the 60 vote threshold which means it's dead. There have been many bills in the past like that one that never became laws and it would be a pretty meaningless article to list the many show bills that didn't become law. Regarding Louisiana, it's marginally interesting, particularly because the two Planned Parenthood clinics there do not perform any abortions so the medicaid funding decision reduced women's access to low cost heath services unrelated to abortion. We could have commentary on how the GOP has been targeting women's access to health services even when there's no abortion services for partisan reasons. There was no "investigation" at all. According to reliable sources, Jindal made a decision for political, rather than any legal reasons.Mattnad (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP's confused version of events aside, the Louisiana thing definitely deserves a sentence. --JBL (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Numerous sources document the actions in Louisiana, and that they don't perform abortions. The other Bill has been mentioned for some time, so I don't know what the IP is talking about. It failed. Period. No need to say more. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mattnad and JBL for posting here. I posted this very same section on this Talk Page and it was "archived" within the hour. I reposted the same and since I got responses from you two, at least acknowledging that this brings an issue or two to be considered to PPFA's article, it has been left here. Please BullRangifer note that all the posts in my very brief Talk Page are of you. This does not seem healthy, and you are one of the main editors in all of the articles spinning off the PPFA's main article (ACORN, CMP, the new Fork, etc) which seems like policing or patrolling of all these "hotly debated" articles within your non-POV opinion. I don't mean this as an attack but other editors should review your edits to this web of articles and confirm if it follows WP:CENSOR or WP:NOTADVOCATE.