Talk:Crisis pregnancy center

Worklist

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

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

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

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

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

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

"strictly socially conservative viewpoint" in 2nd paragraph should be edited for grammar, clarity, and objectivity

2nd paragraph starts: "CPCs are typically run by Christians who adhere to a strictly socially conservative viewpoint."

It is ambiguous as to what what "strictly" is modifying here. As an adverb it most naturally would refer to the manner of the holding of the conservative viewpoint -- describing the subjective holding of the position. Syntactically it seems to have originally been used as an adjective however, modifying "conservative." If this was the intent, "strict socially conservative viewpoint" would have been most proper.

The cited source does not have wording to this effect, despite the following line taken nearly directly verbatim from said article. Based on this positioning, the Wikipedia line seems to refer to the paragraph in the cited article just prior to this. It could very well be argued based on that paragraph that just the opposite of the line in the Wikipedia article is expressed -- citing (the not strict socially conservative) Hilary Clinton about the importance of education and birth control as a way to avoid the sad reality of abortion.

This gets to the point of objectivity. The line is not supported by the cited source, and serves to portray a certain viewpoint as extreme/unfavorable.

For the above reasons, I suggest removing the word "strictly."

Or just move the word: "who adhere strictly to a socially conservative viewpoint".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Attacks and violence"

I've removed this section as failing both WP:V and WP:NPOV. The sources do not support a "wave of violence". The best quality source added isn't even about anything that happened, but what could happen. Some of the sources don't mention crisis pregnancy centers at all, and some aren't reliable for this topic. Adding a whole new header for "attacks and violence" is a clear NPOV issue as written. It's entirely possible some of the recent events are worth including, but this doesn't seem like the wiki-compliant way to do it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Elaborating:

• In May 2022, after an advance leak of the Dobbs decision of June 24, a wave of violence against CPCs began in the United States. A bulletin by the Department of Homeland Security, issued on the day Dobbs was released, warned authorities that incidents of extremist violence could increase and persist for weeks afterward. - doesn't mention CPCs at all, isn't about any documented "attacks and violence at all", just about what may happen regarding abortion.
• At least 19 incidents of property destruction, vandalism, arson, and firebombing were reported by CPCs and other anti-abortion groups. The newly-formed pro-abortion rights terrorist group Jane's Revenge claimed responsibility for many of them. - This is, I think, something that should probably mentioned in the article in some way. I removed it because this version is problematic (and because of how it was added). The source it primarily relies on is the Catholic News Agency, which doesn't help a lot with WP:WEIGHT. AZCentral is ok, but we'd need other sources, too. I see The Guardian has a story focused on this subject which may be of use.

It seems to me that what makes sense is to think about how best to update the article in light of all of the recent Dobbs-related news/events, and include the latter part in that hypothetical section. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it fails both WP:V and WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

@Horse Eye's Back and Rhododendrites: Sorry to ping; unsure if this is on your watchlists and I wanted to be sure you saw it ASAP. Since you both had previously concurred on the removal of material related to (suspected) attacks against CPCs, I wanted to run my one-shot edit on the topic past you two and any pagewatchers. Before I say anything else, I have declared biases on abortion (see my user page; this may be my first edit on the subject outside of typo corrections) and have personally interacted with the author of The Hill article (was actually happily surprised when I went to put her name as the author–good on her for the swanky gig).

As for the material I added, I tried to stick exclusively to sourced content that dealt directly with actual events rather than simply speculation. I deemed the CNN article suitable as it stated DHS gave prior incidents as a justification for their memo and afforded an overview of the backdrop for these incidents (Dobbs). The sourcing on the Madison attack comes from both The Guardian and The Hill–the former is essentially just to confirm details described vaguely in the latter, as only in the latter is an explicit connection between CPCs and the Madison attack made. I have cited CNA–with inline attribution for reasons that should be obvious–in a limited context simply to provide a "total"; I would prefer sourcing not have "Catholic" or "Christian" in the title if we are to include any more specific incidents, particularly against Catholic-affiliated centers.

The section title was something I had to mull over for a bit, but taking a cue from the Abortion clinic article, I went with as plain a title as is appropriate. Also drawing from the clinic article, I deferred to full section rather than a subsection. Due to most of these incidents still being under investigation, I hesitated to outright use the word "attack"; the CNN source seems to confirm that at least some incidents are being officially declared attacks by the relevant authorities. I refrained from the word "violence" as no direct bodily harm has been inflicted against employees of the CPCs, though I do include the injuries from the New York fire. I hope that this explanation is satisfactory and the material I inserted provides ample non-POV and non-UNDUE coverage of this touchy subject. Please ping me in responses; as a matter of principle I will not be putting abortion-related articles on my watchlist. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh and @Elizium23: you were the first to have your hand at this material, so your insight and consideration is also appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Noticed you again removed reliably-sourced content without giving appropriate reasoning. Unless you can definitively evidence that "pro-abortion" is an unacceptable POV term–despite its use by a reliable neutral source in the article–we typically don't delete sourced content (heck, we even keep the unfortunate alternative for "Roma" around). Also, in the future, citing a Wikipedia article is inappropriate for trying to prove reliable sourcing is errant. I would encourage you to reflect on your own POV–as you gave an easily disproved statement as justification for your first edit (see this embracement of "pro-abortion")–and not remove sourced content to match it. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am simply following normal Wikipedia policy for abortion topics. Mainstream news organizations also use the terms pro-choice and pro-life, but we don't (unless it is a direct quote.) Pro-choice, pro-life and pro-abortion are all considered non-neutral. The term "pro-abortion" appears only once in the article Abortion debate, and that is when it is being discussed as a term. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Again, the contents of another Wikipedia article are not policy—nor is there an established policy (if there was, I would hope you would have posted it here). What is absolutely policy is reliable sourcing. Please do not cite a Wikipedia article again. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I will continue to link to whatever article I wish for whatever purpose I wish. In this case the link was to show current consensus. None of the wording at that linked article is there by accident; it is a demonstration of hard-fought consensus.

Rather than specific written policy, we have longstanding consensus regarding non-neutral terms used in the abortion debate. The term "pro-abortion" redirects to Abortion rights movements with a note about how "pro-abortion" is non-neutral. Since 2013, the pro-life page has been moved to Anti-abortion movements. All the pro- terms are non-neutral in the abortion debate. The anti-choice term is non-neutral, of course. But anti-abortion is considered accurate and neutral, because pro-lifers are against abortion. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Clearly, there's a disconnect. We can not unilaterally judge one group to be part of the pro-abortion rights movement—there has to be sourcing for that. If sourcing concurs that an entity is not merely pro-abortion rights (that is, not simply advocating for various measures of legality) but rather repeatedly identified as also strictly "pro-abortion", then we have sourcing. Sourcing policy will always take primacy over localized consensus (which, again, is not what you linked to). Again, unless you can find a way for reliable sourcing to rank lower than a consensus found on another page, we have to go with the sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not a localized issue. Your desired wording is non-neutral. The WP:ONUS is on you to prove otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The following neutral sources refer specifically to Jane's Revenge (no one else) as "pro-abortion": Newsweek, Longmont Leader, CBS News, KCRG. There are others, but let's not race to the bottom. The source cited in the article uses "pro-abortion". Anything else is WP:SYNTH. Also, typically, the onus is on an editor to justify deleting sourced content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Also, please link to the consensus; looking at the talk page, the only consensus on there is that the general movement should not be called "pro-abortion" (kinda an obvious one). The redirect was modified in 2018, so presumably there's a consensus from around there; however, until found, I would say that there is no consensus on the term as a whole (and the non-neutral template should be removed from the redirect). ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, yes! You are free to link to whatever you please. However, please do not cite articles as sourcing for language no present in citations. A request is not a mandate, and you are welcome to continue linking, even if it goes against actually established policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This is just about the terms? Yeah, Wikipedia typically uses "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" or the like, not "pro-choice" or "pro-life" (which are both imprecise slogans) and certainly not "pro-abortion" which is nonsensical and is only really used by the anti-abortion crowd. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Sure, but this isn't a typical group, one that is specifically described differently in the cited sources and elsewhere. I would prefer not to draw equivalence between groups like Jane's Revenge and, say, NARAL. One is explicitly about legal rights advocacy, another is a fundamentalist organization that is treated as such in reliable sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I see the problem with "pro-abortion rights", for groups which are in favor of abortion rights. I believe it is more or less disingenuous to claim that groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute are not "pro-abortion" since they are providers of abortion services and therefore have a fiduciary responsibility to develop, promote, and expand abortion services by their medical providers and clinics. Elizium23 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you articulate why you prefer "pro-abortion rights" to "abortion rights" or something similar? Certainly the latter is more common (and more precise). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That would depend on the entity being described and the sourcing germane to the description. I won't be speaking in hypotheticals or generalities for this. Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Fake abortion clinic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fake abortion clinic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#Fake abortion clinic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Lede NPOV issue

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

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

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

You can shorten my username to Bink if you prefer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment

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

Discussion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Same story in The Guardian UK.[6]

• "How to Identify and Avoid Crisis Pregnancy Centers" by Healthline Media
• "Pregnant and Scared? How Fake Clinics Prey on Women" by National Women's Health Network
• "What Are Crisis Pregnancy Centers?" by Planned Parenthood
• "Hana’s Story: Tricked and Traumatized by a Fake Abortion Clinic" by Ms. (magazine)
• "Feminists Fight Fake Abortion Clinics: “No One Should Be Lied To”" by Ms. (magazine)
• "Four ways fake clinics harm women and undermine abortion access" by The Hill (newspaper)
• "Anti-Abortion Centers to Grow, Wield More Influence Post-Roe" by U.S. News & World Report
• "How To Spot A Fake Abortion Clinic" by Bust (magazine)
• "The Supreme Court Sided With Fake Clinics in California.\" by Rewire News Group
• "How Fake Clinics Use Google — and More — to Mislead Women" by Maine Family Planning
• "Meet The Millennials Fighting To Expose Fake Abortion Clinics" by Refinery29
• "What are crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and why should I avoid them?" by HeyJane.co
• "What are Crisis Pregnancy Centers?" by AbortionClinics.com
• "Fake Clinic Database" by reproaction.com
• "How Crisis Pregnancy Centers Can Overcome the 'Fake Clinic' Myth" by National Institute of Family and Life Advocates
• "The Truth About Crisis Pregnancy Centers" by NARAL Pro-Choice America
• "Are Pregnancy Centers 'Fake' Clinics?" by Care Net
• "Lawmakers urge Google to fix abortion searches suggesting ‘fake clinics’" by The Washington Post. "Crisis pregnancy centers" is presented in quotes as biased, but "fake abortion clinics" is given without quotes as the standard term.
• "Beyond Bray " by Rebecca Eisenberg. "Crisis pregnancy centers" is presented in quotes as biased, but "fake abortion clinics" is given without quotes as the standard term.
• "The Biden-Harris administration needs to end fake abortion clinics" by Stat (website)
• "Google will only show verified abortion providers by default when users search for clinics" by CNBC
• "Google will label which health clinics provide abortions" by Los Angeles Times
• "Avoiding Crisis Pregnancy Centers" by Austin Women's Health Center
• "The Fake Abortion Clinics of America" by Vice Media
• "Fake Abortion Clinics Outnumber Real Ones: Study" by The Crime Report, published by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
• "Lawmakers ask Google to fix abortion searches that mislead users to 'anti-abortion fake clinics'" by USA Today

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

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

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

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

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

Views of medical associations

In a lead-related disagreement that is closely intertwined with the discussion above, we have differing views of an attributed opinion that I sourced to two medical professional associations: [7], [8]. In my opinion, it is better to attribute the opinion to the associations, than to say it vaguely in Wikipedia's voice. I also consider the source from the two associations, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, is a reliable and due-weight source, with an impact factor ranking (per our page) of 9th out of 128 pediatrics journals and 30th out of 193 public health journals. I have notified WikiProject Medicine of this discussion, to get more opinions on the suitability of this material ([9]). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

1 RR request

I'm letting everyone here know that I've made a request at WP:AE for WP:1RR to be placed on this page (not the talk page) for a while: [10]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)