Talk:Family planning

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kuyachris.

WP:NPOV

Just about every sentence under the "Components of family planning" subsections have "should" as a main verb. Sentences with "should" are never verifiable facts; they are normative statements (judgements, opinions). These should all be deleted, as Wikipedia is supposed to contain only verifiable fact. Any comment? --Coppertwig 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I have cleaned up whatever was left of them (it seems that someone got to them before I did). Joie de Vivre 19:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to include information about the federal Title X program, specifically supporting family planning programs. Suggested links could include SIECUS, NFPHRA, Alan Guttmacher Institute. Also, there is a commonly-used statistic that every dollar spent on preventive family planning save 3+ dollars on medicaid births and health costs associated with unplanned pregnancies. The above-mentioned sources provide verifiable information.Go2India 23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't family planning become a euphemism for abortion?--Mokru 18:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - George Orwell would be proud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Groups who believe abortion is a reproductive right include it among family planning services, but the scope of the topic of family planning is certainly much broader than a single procedure. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As an example, here's the English National Health Service's page about family planning clinics. There's a lot there that could be incorporated into this article. 86.132.141.139 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, just as financial planning is not a euphemism for bankruptcy. Zodon (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to misrepresent the topic. The phrase "family planning" has been called a euphemism: Even the phrase "family planning" is a euphemism, devised early in the history of the [birth-control] movement to put a respectable emphasis on reformers' activities and to desexualize an essentially sexual subject as much as possible. [[1]] Family planning clinics are viewed by many as abortion clinics, perhaps especially in the U.S. where Planned Parenthood clinics perform abortions. The Planned Parenthood link is broken, I believe [this] page may have been intended. I couldn't easily find anything about "family planning" on PP's site -- not in the menus, and not under "view all topics." The site prominently mentions birth control and abortion, among other services. Is that a what a family planning clinic is? The entire first paragraph of this article argues that family planning and birth control (and/or abortion) are not synonymous, but oddly stating explicitly that this is a minority opinion -- yet it is the opinion presented as being more valid. That is bizarre. It contradicts or at least flagrantly ignores reliable sources. The birth control article uses the phrase "family planning" as synonymous to "birth control." Is that article in error? Is this article a POV fork?

I believe this article, especially the lead, needs a major revision. My personal preference would be that the entire article redirect to birth control until some reliable sources can be found making the argument this article makes. If and when that happens, the birth control article could discuss varying points of view on the question of whether "family planning" is a euphemism for "birth control," a euphemism for "birth control and abortion," or something else entirely. Blackworm (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose redirect. Agreed that it needs a bunch of work. But removing it won't help that. It is not at all the same thing as birth control. Birth control is a set of techniques and technologies frequently used as part of family planning. I just revised the lead to give it more depth, and include some of the other services commonly included in family planning. Will take a little bit to gather sources. Zodon (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what is said above, the birth control article currently hardly uses the term family planning (except for 'natural family planning' - which is a name for fertility awareness, and the link that I recently added. Zodon (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, the birth control article uses the phrase family planning without noting what its relationship is to birth control. This resonates with my belief, which is echoed by the source I cite above, that "family planning" is a substitute for the term, "birth control."

I oppose your edit, Family planning is most frequently used to mean that a couple plans when to have children, using birth control and other techniques to implement that plan. There is no cited source verifying this claim. Specifically, the claim that the phrase is "most frequently used" to mean what the article claims. "Family planning" and "family planning clinics" is synonymous with birth control, and to a lesser extent is associated with abortion, to many, if not most, English speakers, and certainly most Americans. Do you agree or disagree? Blackworm (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As noted, the use of family planning clinic on the birth control page can at best suggest that they are associated (as in birth control services are among those commonly offered by family planning clinics), it need not imply that they are synonymous. The above quote is an observation about the history of the term, and does not speak to current usage.

Fixed the 'most frequently,' that was indeed unsourced and an error. (I was being too cautious about trying to come up with something that I thought would suite the tenor of this thread.)

It is possible that the majority of English speakers regard these terms as synonymous, I have no idea - I am no expert on demographics and public opinion. If most English speakers regard family planning as a synonym for birth control, that fact could certainly be germane for inclusion in the article (assuming the assertion was properly sourced). But just because something is "common knowledge" or common usage does not mean that it is verifiable, true, or worth emphasizing. So, I don't know what percentage regards these as synonymous, and it is not apparent why it is important.

This is an article about Family planning, not just a dictionary definition. So the uses that are common in the field (e.g. see citations WHO, US Health Dept, NHS) should be covered, and especially in a field that is fairly new and frequently misrepresented, they should be given reasonable weight. Just because people associate something with one of its aspects doesn't mean that one has to limit coverage of that thing to that aspect, or pro-rate coverage based on people's perception. Zodon (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Frequently used" is still unsourced. I believe you misunderstood my objection to "most frequently used." It is no better the way you have phrased it, whether it be "frequently used" or "always used" or "seldom used." No source is cited on the frequency of this usage, thus we cannot make a statement about its frequency. The most neutral thing to say is "was used by [source author]..."

I don't share your opinion that "expert views" on what a phrase really means is somehow more relevant than what the majority of laypeople believe it means. I believe if someone has been called an "expert on family planning," their opinions should likely be presented at this point in this article's development. But this has not been shown about your sources. IMO, just because sources discuss "family planning services" and what "family planning implies" doesn't make them experts on what family planning is. For that, one could perhaps refer to this source, a self-described medical encyclopedia on the National Institutes for Health website. As its entry for "family planning," it has, "Family planning and contraception see Birth control and family planning"). The entry it references says, "Alternative Names: Contraception; Family planning and contraception. Definition: Which form of birth control you choose depends on a number of different factors, including your health, how often you have sex, and whether or not you want children." (End of definition.) Seems like they're using it pretty much synonymously to me, in fact their cross-reference seems analogous to my call for an article redirect above. Now, I'm not insisting on a redirect because it's what this one source suggests we should do, but I think it behooves us not to regard the view as something to be argued against by this article.

Also at present, the article text sourced from the WHO and NHS does not seem to always follow from these sources, which would violate policy (No Original Research). This may simply be a question of a lack of clarity and I think I might be able to rephrase it in a way we can both agree on.

You can emphasize education, reproductive health services, and other aspects, or you can note them. Which do you believe this article does? I'm not against giving them reasonable weight, I'm against emphasizing them in the context of family planning. I believe that most people would agree with family planning to mean, fundamentally, "legal manipulation of the probability of the occurrence of healthy childbirth through various means" although it has not been phrased thusly to my knowledge. I believe that birth control is the most often used form of family planning, at least in the West, but on that my confidence is weaker. Do you challenge these statements? If so, I will, of course have to find more sources or concede that it is not the case as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Blackworm (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Family Planning in Muslim Communities

As this page recommends a broadened world view, I am proposing a new subsection to the page entitled ‘Family Planning in Muslim Communities’. Islam, a religion that comprises 21-23% of the world’s population, has no explicit writings against contraception in its religious texts (the Qur’an and hadith), but promotes procreation. The page entitled Religious views on birth control contains a brief overview of Islamic views on Birth control (which I would certainly link, and possibly add to in this proposed section), but I am looking to focus on specific communities to provide insight on the legislative and societal attitudes on the subject, as well what kind of family planning is actually practiced. These community subsections would include Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, all of which have an ever growing body of research on family planning practices, and a link to the Family Planning in Iran page.

One of the World Health Organization’s Millennium Development Goals (5.B) highlights a need for universal access to Reproductive health, pointing out an unmet need for family planning. I believe a thorough, unbiased presentation of family planning in Muslim populations will expand upon challenges to this goal and bring light to the development of women and human rights in these communities. Are there any suggestions or comments on this proposal? Is there a way to organize this entry to best fit in with the existing content? Would an entry focusing solely on one community, such as Pakistan, better serve the page? Mschweickart (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)mschweickart

I've gotten no responses for this entry, but I've decided to add a section under 'Policy' called 'Pakistan', linked to a new page I am creating entitled Family Planning in Pakistan, rather than tackle the broad category of Family Planning in Muslim Communities. I think this entry is a good addition to the countries already listed on the page (while also being an example of a Muslim community). Mschweickart (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)mschweickart

I think either approach could be valuable. I think the approach you selected of picking a particular country to work on may be a little easier, just because in a family planning in muslim communities article it might be harder to distinguish which characteristics were because the populations involved were primarily islamic, and which had other origins. It also avoids problems with defining which countries to include in such a section.

There is so little coverage of FP on Wikipedia that I have focused mostly on discovering and linking together what bits I can find and on general overview material. But more material on specific areas is needed. Thanks for taking this on. Zodon (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Australia

In Australia family planning is a term to describe a number of different things, but primarily it revolves around the giving of information. This includes counseling to pregnant women and their partners, contraceptives, reproductive/fertility cycles etc. I'm not sure whether I followed the objections people had, but it seems some people want to use the term abortion and family planning interchangeably. I don't think that is a particularly informed view. At least from my inverted point of view. Nina124.170.82.8 (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Benefits of sisters

The following item has been added under the heading "Negative effects"

Studies have demonstrated that having sisters can enhance the quality of life of an adult person.

Relating this to family planning appears to be WP:OR (the source makes no mention of relation to family planning.) Saying that this is a negative effect certainly lacks neutrality. Family planning is just the idea that plan when to have children and how many to have. If you decide to have multiple girl children to make them happier - how is that a negative effect? Could just as well call it a positive effect.

This item seems more relevant to sex selection, which is where I moved it the first time it was added. (Where it may also be OR.) Adding it here would require more references to indicate that this is indeed a consideration a significant number of people use in family planning. Also issues with undue weight. Zodon (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In the wikipedia article, family planning is described as "It is most usually applied to a female-male couple who wish to limit the number of children", so not having (or having) a sister is related to this article.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand the article also says that having brothers affects families the other way. So if chose to have fewer children, may also increase happiness by reducing number of brothers. (Limiting doesn't say how many or of what sex.)

Also this study occurred in the UK and only looked at a small sample of young people (17-25). Maybe the effect changes with age? Maybe it varies with different cultures. Zodon (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One may already have only male children. Balance that information within the text.Nutriveg (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One could use the same reference to say the opposite. "Positive effects: Studies have demonstrated that having brothers can reduce the quality of life of an adult person."

Rather than just re-adding problematic material, please improve it if you think it is important. Would need more neutral phrasing. The reference says nothing about family planning, so relation to this article is WP:OR (i.e. needs citations to relate it), and needs some indication that this consideration actually plays a significant role in family planning decisions (undue weight). Zodon (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert again, at risk of violating WP:3RR. Since you just reverted my edit instead of adding what you mention that was important to balance the text, now, for a while, I can't follow your suggestion to improve it at risk of violating WP:3RR myself. Have a nice day.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You could add new references and discuss ways to improve it here. (Which is a preferred way to handle this sort of thing, rather than continually reinserting inadequately sourced material in the article.)

At this point it is not a case of adding material or rewording for balance, but of needing references to show that this is even relevant and a significant aspect of family planning. Until sources are provided that establish this, the material doesn't belong in the article - neutrally phrased or not. Zodon (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The material belong to the article because that kind of information of the impact of a future son/daughter is relevant for the planning of a family. But I agree that the text should have more details that weren't mentioned, as you point above: UK, young adults and role of brothers. That's what I would change.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Then give references that actually indicate that this consideration is used as a criticism of (or factor in using) family planning by a significant number of people. Since family planning in general relates to chosing when to have children and how many to have, it seems more closely related to the more specific area of sex selection - planning the sex of child or children to have. Zodon (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As the article says, and I already mentioned, family planning is described as "It is most usually applied to a female-male couple who wish to limit the number of children". One couple with only female children, may decide not to have another child because the risk of having a boy, and another couple with only male children, may decide to have another, adding up the chance of it being a girl as a benefit.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One might be able to extend/encorporate the idea that people may have preferences on sex of children, when to stop, etc. (e.g. into a summary of sex selection for inclusion in Family planning or reproductive life plan.) But that is quite different from saying this is a negative (or positive) effect of family planning.

The specifics here are WP:OR with regard to that reference since, while people could do that, the reference makes no mention of limiting the number of children or family planning or using this as basis for deciding number of children. So question is do people use this consideration? Do the benefits of a girl outweigh the minuses of a boy (in later scenario, even if have a girl, pluses may not outweigh minuses)? Zodon (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Proposal

This article seems to need sections for Natural Family Planning ( see for example [2]) and ethical aspects. Neutrality of article as it is now seems to be questionable. J.Lulle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

This article does not have sections for any specific method of birth control. Those are covered in the birth control article, including Natural Family Planning. As far as ethical aspects, while I know the Roman Catholic Church objects to specific methods of birth control (and Wikipedia covers this in natural family planning and, as far as it relates to the AIDS epidemic, in condom), I'm not aware of any prominent group that has ethical objections to family planning itself. I guess I'm not sure what you're looking to add to the article. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Abortion as family planning

The only mention of abortion in this article is in the China section, and now in the newly created "Risk of death" section, even though there is a health section. I can understand where this is coming from, having been part of the discussion over at "abortion" (rational is some felt this content wasn't helpful at that article, so they were trying to find a new home for it). And my initial edit seems to suggest I supported the move. But after reviewing this article, and on recollection, I feel that the new section simply is not appropriate for this article. The 2 cited sources do not relate the content to this general topic of "family planning". It seems a bit contrived or original research to add the section here. Not to mention that some feel abortion is not (or should not) be a method of family planning. Perhaps we can find a new home for the content in another article? I don't oppose the content by any means, but don't think it is proper here and propose (re)moving it. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this talk page section. A few minutes earlier, I coincidentally edited the article to address this matter. As to whether the term "family planning" encompasses abortion, there are thousands of reliable sources that say it does. Planned Parenthood wouldn't be involved with abortions if it thought otherwise. True, many people oppose abortion, but that doesn't mean abortion shouldn't be discussed at all in this article, or in the abortion article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to focus on the one sentence that I said "not to mention"... ;) The section is still really odd. It has no context, and would seem to imply "When deciding a method of family planning, consider the mortality rate..." and thus the conclusion that abortion is better than oral contraception which is better than live birth (which of course is nonsense). I can understand wanting to find a place to compare and contrast this material, but the state of this article, it seems really out of place, and again, lacks context... -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt that this article is suboptimal, and needs more material. The best solution, then, would be to add material, not remove it. As for implications, it seems odd that you haven't made any similar comments at the abortion article, regarding implications that you feel are included in the statistics for abortion fatalities versus childbirth fatalities. I can tell you this: I did not mean to imply anything like what you described when I started this section of this article, and there's no indication that the cited sources intended to imply what you say. Also, I don't think those sources have to use the magic term "family planning" in order for the material to be appropriate in this article, given that family planning includes the matters discussed in the sources. The article on the Solar system discusses the Oort cloud, but the cited source by Stern and Weissman on the Oort Cloud does not explicitly use the term "solar system."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section as I do not feel it is appropriate for this page, as described above. I'd like further input to see what others feel, and where consensus lays. Full text can be found below.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

removed section

There is a risk of death from abortion, from childbirth, and also from using oral contraceptives (OCP). Some of these risks vary from country to country. For example, in the United States, the risk of death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, and childbirth carries a risk of 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. The risk of death associated with oral contraceptives (OCP), for women aged 35 to 39 years old, is 4 per 100,000 for non-smokers, versus 13 per 100,000 for smokers. Use of condoms carries no death risk, although some condoms may have health risks.

Further discussion

I've raised this issue at the Original Research Noticeboard.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My major concern isn't OR. I'm willing to concede your analogy on the noticeboard isn't OR. Why do you think it is important to mention the mortality statistics for 4 topics related to family planning? -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You said above: "It seems a bit contrived or original research to add the section here." So, I brought it to the OR Noticeboard. Thanks for conceding the point, and I'll remove the item at the Noticeboard.

In answer to your recent question, people seem interested in risk of death from procedures such as these. They're notable, and reliable sources discuss them. So, why not? I'm not obsessed with the number "4" if that's what you mean. Feel free to add more. Additionally, I thought it would be a bit off topic to be discussing the risk of childbirth at an article on abortion (and vice versa), whereas this article seems like an appropriate home for such info about multiple family planning procedures (and this section of the article could potentially be linked to from the individual articles about the individual family planning procedures). You said above that you "don't oppose the content by any means." If the content is to be in Wikipedia, this seems like as good a home for it as any, and you have suggested no other.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is just a very odd section to have. Maybe we should have an all inclusive table that lists as many methods of "family planning" as possible. Maybe we should have columns for information such as cost, effectiveness, side effects, and yes, even mortality rates. Something like List of antibiotics or List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium or (ahem) this gem. But having a section in this article about risk of death is just really odd. It doesn't seem to fit. It doesn't have any context. When looking at overview articles like vaccines or antibiotics or surgery, I don't see similar such information. While West Nile virus has a sections on mortality rates and we have an entire article devoted to Human mortality from H5N1, the top level virus article does not have a section comparing the two (well 2+). And I can understand the need to have comparisons between similar topics (like the aforementioned list articles). But singling out death, and 4 methods. It's problematic to me. The content, as written, just seems out of place in this article, and I'd prefer it didn't go here as it was written. Just my preference. Comparison of birth control methods#Comparison table might due well with a column for mortality statistics, but then we still wouldn't be drawing a comparison of those method to abortion and childbirth. So, off the top of my head, I can't name a better place for such a section (outside of breaking up the content and adding it to the constituent articles). But I'm skeptical of a need for such a section. Yes, there is a debate regarding a really similar topic going on at Talk:abortion, but that doesn't mean there is public interest in the topic, or that it is encyclopedic, or that we need a section specifically addressing the concerns of a few anonymous Wikipedia editors ;) I think probably a solution I would be happy with would be a table comparing multiple methods, and including a lot of other information outside of mortality rates. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You think that info about death risk from childbirth is fine in the abortion article, even though childbirth is the antithesis of abortion. And yet info about the risk of childbirth is not okay in this article which clearly covers childbirth. This strikes me as wildly implausible. May we please restore the section, and work on improving this section and the article as a whole, instead of removing the information and the reliable sources? At this point, I am inclined to notify whatever WikiProjects have an interest in this article, to seek further input. Are you adamant about keeping the section removed? Various family planning procedures have risks associated with them, and this article can appropriately mention them in a small section towards the end of the article. I have no objection if that section also includes risks short of death, and if it covers additional family planning procedures such as vasectomy and the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My position on the abortion article isn't relevant (but editors there appear to be making a very careful case to dig up sources making that comparison, and not to draw conclusions or connections not found in sources). When I think of abortion, sure I think of death. When I think of family planning, no I don't think of death. This is why I was requesting sources that discuss family planning and death rates in the same source. I think we should put our focus on expanding/improving this instead. I still don't support restoring that section, but if it is a standstill, then a third opinion may be needed. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The info you removed from this article about the risks of childbirth and the risks of abortion would not fit in an article comparing birth control methods. Most medical procedures and regimens involve risk, so I don't see why risks cannot be briefly mentioned here. I'll make a note of it here if and when I ask for more input.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

References

wrong lead

The very first sentence is stylistically incorrect.You can't have "such plans" when there's no mention of them previously in the text. BTW the article is riddled with euphemisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.222.205 (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Article on Family Planning in Sub Saharan Africa

I am planning on writing a new article titled "Family Planning in Africa" with subsections about a few countries for a Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class that I currently taking. I would like to add links for each country that I write a subsection for to the list of countries under the Policy subsection of this article. I think this is an important contribution because African countries are not represented at all on the current version of this page. I plan on using scholarly articles and possibly a few newspaper articles as sources. Does anyone have any feedback about this? There is a detailed description of my proposed article in my sandbox.Juliannadrew (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Fertility Awareness or Natural Family Planning - new subsection?

The Catholic Church has always advocated forms of family planning that do not involve contraception or IVF. In recent years, there is also been an uptick in the number of younger people seeking methods of fertility awareness so they simply avoid coitus at certain times of the month. I wanted to ask about the feasibility of adding a small subsection about such things right after contraception and before fertility assistance. Evidently, a much smaller number use such methods but I think it's an important perspective to mention in a few lines. What would be the consensus? What would be a good title for that subsection? I bring this up first and talk as my specialty is Catholicism not sociology and medicine which this page focuses on. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 21:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Family planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091221114019/http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Family_Planning_Fact_Sheets_india.pdf to http://www.searo.who.int/linkfiles/family_planning_fact_sheets_india.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567300_3/Iran.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140818081827/http://www.your-life.com/en/home/world-contraception-day/ to http://www.your-life.com/en/home/world-contraception-day/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Family planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5kwc3Hf9W?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567300_3/Iran.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567300_3/Iran.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203093100/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920095035/http://www.hhs.gov/opa/about/legislation/index.html to http://www.hhs.gov/opa/about/legislation/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Family planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206063342/http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/2319 to http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/2319
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813091603/http://www.ippf.org/en/About/History.htm to http://www.ippf.org/en/About/History.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Family planning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724165848/http://www.msmoney.com/mm/planning/marriage/family_planning.htm to http://www.msmoney.com/mm/planning/marriage/family_planning.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308094245/http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/ofp/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/OFP/Pages/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008050517/http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2011/research/family-planning-federal-program-reduced-births-to-poor-women-by-nearly-30-percent/ to http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2011/research/family-planning-federal-program-reduced-births-to-poor-women-by-nearly-30-percent/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418105722/http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/birth-control-methods.cfm to http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/birth-control-methods.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117113706/http://www.esr.ie/Vol34_3Bloom.pdf to http://www.esr.ie/Vol34_3Bloom.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426013524/http://populationaction.org/reports/population-fertility-and-family-planning-in-pakistan-a-program-in-stagnation/ to http://populationaction.org/reports/population-fertility-and-family-planning-in-pakistan-a-program-in-stagnation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Reproductive life plan hasn't seen any edits since it was created, and it could be replaced with one sentence in this article. Mvolz (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Where's the Indonesia country section for Family Planning?

It only shows India, but there is no Indonesia anyway, please anyone add it.