Talk:Abby Johnson (activist)

Anti-abortion vs. pro-life

There have been repeated recent IP attempts to replace the header Anti-abortion activism with Pro-Life activism or some slight variant thereof. As the section is solely about anti-abortion activities, the former is appropriate. Additionally, this falls under the general category of what was already discussed above under the Wording discussion. The header should not be changed without a new consensus being reached first. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Anti-abortion is used as a critical and possibly derogatory term for pro-lifers, by those who are pro-choice. For example, an article on purely pro-choice activities can also be characterized as "anti-life", by those are are pro-life. Since the person, Abby Johnson, associates with her activities as pro-life, I believe it is not foul play to change the anti-abortion verbiage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.76 (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, "anti-abortion" is about as clear as neutral a description of opposition to abortion as one gets. "Pro-life" is used as a term that fuzzes the actual matter being addressed, and is used to cast those of opposing views as opposing "life" rather than supporting "legal availability of abortions". The fact that she describes herself as being pro-life is no more vital than if she described herself as a "hero" or a "good person"; what she is known for is her opposition to abortion. (And in balance, you will notice that if you go to pro-choice as an article name here, you end up with an article not under that title, but under Abortion-rights movements.) Just about everyone is in favor of "life" and "choice"; abortion is a more complex question. --Nat Gertler (talk)

Incorrect. It is absolutely NOT neutral. It is derogatory. It is KNOWN to be derogatory and must be removed immediately. There is no such thing as Anti-abortion. We are Pro-Life. Abortion ends life; life does not end abortion. Unless you concede that it's appropriate to change all Pro-Choice references to Pro-abortion. Maybe Pro-human-carnage? That would be closest to accurate, if accuracy is truly what you're aiming for. MarkoOhNo 12:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Nat Gertler, and indeed it was well-stated. StarHOG (Talk) 14:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. It is also super-weird that people can't understand the difference between different kinds of negativity; "anti-death penalty" is a negative construction, and "dumb as a brick" is a negative characterization, but only one of those phrases would be problematic in Wikipedia. (Ok, weird-not-weird, but you know what I mean.) --JBL (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Then there should be no problem calling her activities Unborn-rights activities, if you can say that Abortion-rights activities is ok. And that wouldn't be problematic to Wikipedia, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.40 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

If it is a legitimate term, we could debate it, but you can't just make-up terms for the sake of an argument. Wikipedia requires sources, so you would first have to show that this is a term used by notable third-party sources. I did a quick google search on unborn-rights and it only returned articles discussing the rights of the unborn, not "unborn-rights" as a term. StarHOG (Talk) 13:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you trying to phrase that as "gay rights", and thus suggesting that the unborn have voiced their ability to have options, or as in "gun rights", which is the rights of someone else to have access to the unborn, but somehow not including the mother in those rights? --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added the release of the Unplanned film and linked the title to the film's wiki page. --Abrady0830 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

People are identified by what they desire to be identified. This is not a political statement, this is a statement of self-identification. There is no consensus for this article's section to be constantly renamed from how the majority of the population identifies this issue and the article's subject herself desires to be be self-identified. This cuts across political lines, as even Democrats are demanding to be called pro-life. Grossmisconduct (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of how people want to be identified, movements are not people and Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy or public relations. "Pro-life" is a WP:EUPHEMISM. Anti-abortion is a clear and neutral summary of her position. Grayfell (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"movements are not people". Really? You've just invalidated your entire argument. Grossmisconduct (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the choice between a euphemism and a dysphemism, I'd prefer the former, per WP:LABEL. One side can either be represented with the euphemism "pro-choice" or the dyphemism "pro-abortion". A quick search shows the euphemism is 10x more common on wikipedia. The other side can either be represented with the euphemism "pro-life" or the dysphemism "anti-abortion". A quick search shows that euphemism is 2x more common on wikipedia. (btw, something along these lines, comparing relative frequency of euphemism usage, may be a good way to quantify wikipedia's liberal bias). The manual of style section on euphemisms is just about avoiding vague/confusing terms. There is no confusion about what pro-choice or pro-life mean, and both are used on wikipedia far more often than "pro-abortion"/"anti-abortion".Jwray (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is getting tendentious. For whatever reason, on Wikipedia, Anti-abortion movement is the term used—while Pro-life is a redirect. Gain the consensus to change that, on article talk page/s first. Any further edit warring that fails to take this into account will be viewed harshly. El_C 01:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Then let's create a consensus. This is 1 vote for pro-life. Pro-life: 1. Anti-abortion: 0. If the pro-choice group was called anti-life or pro-abortion, that would certainly have a negative connotation. Grossmisconduct (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not what WP:CONSENSUS means, and this isn't a vote. As has already been explained, "pro-choice" is a redirect to abortion-rights movements. If a neutral and accurate description of a position has more "negative connotations" than the movement's preferred euphemism for itself, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Grayfell (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"People are identified by what they desire to be identified." Only in certain specific categories of identification. I may want to be identified as "King of Spain", "one of the good guys", "master of the pan flute", or "the hottest thing this side of the Pecos", but none of those are going to be how I'm identified on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you're trying to cover up that she opposes abortion, but it's a key fact and should not be hidden. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a better way of explaining what I was trying to get at by saying that movements are not people. People can call themselves whatever they want, and the people within the anti-abortion movement can call the movement whatever they want. Whatever it's called, it will still be a movement which is defined solely by its opposition to abortion. Trying to apply a group's PR to an individual within that group is misguided for several reasons. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That would only be fair if you also described all the pro-choice activists as pro-abortion. A quick search shows the former label is 10x more common here. Jwray (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to have a discussion about other articles, this is not the correct place to do it. This is the talk page to discuss editing this article. The phrase "pro-choice" appears exactly twice in this article, in direct quotation and the title of a reference, and certainly neither of those is going to be changed. Where it appears elsewhere in the encyclopedia is not relevant.

Based on past experience, I can assure you that there will not be consensus for a broad change from "anti-abortion" to the less accurate and somewhat polemical "pro-life", and there will not be consensus for a broad change from "pro-choice" to the less accurate and highly polemical "pro-abortion", but there will probably be consensus for changing "pro-choice" to "favoring abortion rights" or similar in places where that works in context -- feel free to invite me to any such discussion you initiate, and if I have a few moments to spare I will be happy to weigh in.

Finally, if you think this particular act of politically loaded characterization is the most important thing you could possibly be trying to accomplish on Wikipedia, probably you need a hobby whose values align better with your interests. --JBL (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

JBL, Your first point was completely correct, your opinion on the second point is probably correct, but your third point was unnecessary, please let us all keep this discussion civil. StarHOG (Talk) 14:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

Abby Johnson's story of conversion from Planned Parenthood worker to anti-abortion activist has been questioned. There are many contradictions pointed out in this article, which includes an interview with Johnson. Specifically her conversion story is thought by some to be a cover up for her being put on a performance improvement plan by her employer. Also she has routinely suggested that Planned Parenthood is not a nonprofit and that there is a profit motive at work in abortion services. 99Bagel99 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Both the performance improvement plan and Johnsons claims that abortions were being pushed for profit are already covered in this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood's statistics of abortion by percentage

There is a statement in the wiki about abortions being only 3% of services provided by Planned Parenthood, which is intended to invalidate Johnson's claims of PP's strong interests in performing abortions. Either that statistic should be removed as "leading the witness" or it should clarified what PP defines a service to be. They equate a birth control pill prescription to an abortion. This helps explain why the 3% comment from PP is not the full story and why it gives credence to Johnson's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.83 (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The sentence under the 'Resignation' section,

   An article on Salon.com questioned Johnson's statements regarding financial incentives for abortions, asserting that abortions make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services, a figure PolitiFact described as "somewhat misleading."

is not supported by the cited articles. The first article is about non-governmental revenue amount, not total number of services rendered, and the 2nd article finds the claim

   97% of Planned Parenthood's work is mammograms, preventive care

to be "Half True", but this 2nd article also states that

   Based on this list, it’s accurate that abortion procedures only count for 3 percent of all services provided, meaning 97 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides are other forms of reproductive and primary care.  

The problem here being that the conclusions of the Politifact articles are not about the claim "abortions make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services" at all, they are about a similar yet factually distinct claim. --Cowlinator (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The entire attempt to apply these articles to either the Slate article or to Abby is that they do not mention either of those things. As such, that qualifies as original research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

Please change "four children" to "seven children": "She lives in Texas with her husband Doug and four children.[2]"

Source: http://www.abbyjohnson.org/thanks-for-stopping-by Other source: The text at the end of the 2019 film Unplanned actually said she has eight children. Kpikhart (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. (And both sources could be correct; she may have eight kids, one of whom has headed off.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Records from the Texas Department of Health

This request is now in two new headings on this talk page, not sure if it is appropriate to combine, but it seemed more logical than responding to the same request in two sections. StarHOG (Talk) 14:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be revised: In the sentence, "Although Johnson said the abortion was of a 13-week-old fetus, records from the Texas Department of Health show no such abortions performed at the Bryan clinic on the date in question." I propose adding the words, "one article says that" before "records." Then I propose adding the following sentences: "Whether the records actually show this is a matter of dispute. Johnson says that the Texas Department of Health would never release that information." Explanation of issue: The assertion that Texas Department of Health records show no abortions of a 13-week-old fetus on that date cites an article in Texas Monthly. Abby Johnson says that the Texas Monthly reporter sent her a copy of the documentation the reporter used. She says it is from Planned Parenthood and not from the Texas Department of Health. Furthermore, she cites the Texas Health and Safety Code 245.011 to say that the Department of Health would never release that kind of information. She also shows that the document sent to the reporter isn't the form that would have been sent to the Department of Health. References supporting change: Revmarple (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Abby Johnson's Public Response to Texas Monthly Claim

In section 2.1 (Planned Parenthood/resignation), the following claim cited from Texas Monthly appears: "Although Johnson said the abortion was of a 13-week-old fetus, records from the Texas Department of Health show no such abortions performed at the Bryan clinic on the date in question.[9]"

The Federalist has just published a piece by Johnson in response to these claims, entitled, "Yes, I Really Did See An Ultrasound-Guided Abortion That Made Me Pro-Life".

I would edit the article in order to include Johnson's response, but am not able to do so because it has been placed under Extended Confirmed Protection.

I propose the following or similar wording be added by an editor who qualifies under Extended Confirmed Protection. I propose that it be added directly after the quote noted at the top of my entry (beginning with "Although Johnson said the abortion was..."):

However, Johnson has disputed this claim, stating that the Texas Department of Health does not release such information because of patient privacy issues. She also noted that the form Planned Parenthood reportedly submitted to the Texas Department of Health is not the correct form. Johnson also stated that there were other "glaring disparities" in the report. [10]

Ref: Johnson, Abby (April 8, 2019). Yes, I Really Did See An Ultrasound-Guided Abortion That Made Me Pro-Life. The Federalist. Retrieved April 9, 2019. Liam Patrick (talk)

So, both these requests ask that we use a primary source, Abby's statements, as a reference, which is against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia mandates that we use 3rd party sourcing as often as possible. Therefore, an article from a reputable source, such as Texas Monthly, can be used. It can be noted that she rebukes them, but that is already taken care of by the fact that her statements about what she saw are already included in the article. If this is to be explored further, than what you need is a 3rd party source who looks at her claims and Texas Monthly's sources and provides an article about it that we can cite. StarHOG (Talk) 14:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@StarHOG: I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but the Catholic News Agency article discussed in the section below [1] includes the lines

Although Planned Parenthood has denied that this abortion ever took place, their assertion conflicts with other comments from Laura Kaminczak, who said she spoke with Johnson shortly after it occurred.

—perhaps that could be mentioned? Cheers, gnu57 15:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, gnu57. I think the addition of the statement/source you mentioned would be helpful. However, I would point out that I once dealt with an article in which a similar situation arose. And a moderator/editor who had authority stepped in and said that it is not an absolute prohibition in regard to allowing such statements from primary sources (especially when published in acceptable sources, rather than personal blogs/websites, etc), when they are helpful in defending the subject of an article against negative allegations made against them. However, the moderator also said that they should be used judiciously/sparingly. Your thoughts? Liam Patrick (talk)

So I looked at this some more and, unfortunately, what we have is kind of like this: Joe said he did a thing. Sarah said she talked to Joe and he told her he did a thing. Sarah's story doesn't confirm Joe's story, it is really the same story. Now, If Sarah interviewed Joe and then did some investigation with other agencies to verify Joe's statements, and told the readers her analysis, that is different. StarHOG (Talk) 17:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm getting confused. Do you mean Joe=Johnson, Sarah=Kaminczak? gnu57 18:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, Joe and Sarah are examples, like, Person A said they did a thing, Person B says they talked to Person A..... StarHOG (Talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I understood that you meant it as an example; what I'm still confused about is how it lines up with this situation. Is "Person B" in the analogy (the one reporting A's claims without analysing them) Catholic News Agency or Laura Kaminczak? Here's the article about Kaminczak, by the way: [2]. She's a former coworker of Johnson who questions Johnson's account by saying that Johnson had seemed perfectly happy with the abortion procedure when they talked about it immediately afterwards. (Johnson denies Kaminczak's account of the conversation.) The Catholic News Agency article is noting that these two debunkings are mutually inconsistent. Cheers, gnu57 21:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought about this some more and realised that I had the wrong end of the stick: the fact that a third-party account (Kaminczak's in the Texas Observer) also contradicts Texas Monthly can be sourced to CNA, but it probably isn't worth including here unless we also give space to describing Kaminczak's other criticisms of Johnson. Setting aside that goose chase, how about tacking on a bald statement like "Johnson has questioned the validity of the records"? I think that can be sourced to Johnson as an assertion about her, rather than about the details of the forms. Cheers, gnu57 13:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we could have that, but the present moment should make clear that we cannot treat every claim of "fake news" as actually invalidating the source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

4/8/19 - unreliable source in Resignation section?

From the current revision of the article:

"Johnson says that in September 2009, she was called in to assist in an ultrasound-guided abortion at 13 weeks gestation. She said she was disconcerted to see how similar the ultrasound image looked to her own daughter's. Johnson, who previously believed fetuses could not feel anything while being aborted, says she saw the fetus squirming and twisting to avoid the vacuum tube used for the abortion.[6]"

The latter sentence cites an article from "Catholic News Agency" titled "Abby Johnson reveals details of pro-life turnaround and Catholic conversion." Does this present to anyone else as a biased source? The verbiage used throughout the article reads to me as being pretty definitively anti-abortion, signaling that the agency itself has a bias leaning that way. Not sure if this is a 100% reliable source in this case. Open to other opinions. Maybe reword this section to rely more on direct quotes from Johnson herself rather than paraphrases of the potentially biased article?

Lukebechtel (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias does not inherently make a source unreliable, so long as the facts they present are true. All sources are likely to have some leaning. In this case, CNA is being used just to cite Johnson as saying things that are consistent with what she has said elsewhere, so I see no reason to cast particular doubt on its accuracy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! Lukebechtel (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Addition on Planned Parenthood 3% abortion claim

Under the section "Work at Planned Parenthood" subsection "Resignation", the following sentence appears:

"An article on Salon.com questioned Johnson's statements regarding financial incentives for abortions, asserting that abortions make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services,[5] a figure PolitiFact described as "somewhat misleading".[8]

I propose adding the following sentences, drawn from an article at Slate.com and another at Weekly Standard:

"However, an article at Slate.com claimed the 3% figure is misleading and that Planned Parenthood gets at least a third of its clinic income and 10% of all its revenue from abortion. The Weekly Standard claims that the data suggests abortion generates as much as 38.4% of Planned Parenthood's clinic revenues."

Links to Citations:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/05/3-percent-of-planned-parenthood-s-services-are-abortion-but-what-about-their-revenues.html

https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/do-abortions-account-for-3-or-38-of-planned-parenthoods-activities

Liam Patrick (talk)