Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

Support

Included a new section which mentions polling that shows American support for the banning of funding for abortion overseas (which is what the Helms Amendment does). One user object to this inclusion. What do people think?

Furthermore, I do not see why there is a long mention on the history of the Mexico City Policy, which is a separate thing (only a brief mention is needed. Also, I do not see why one needs to mention Helms as a "strident anti-abortionist" it is already self-evident from his action make said amendment. What are people's thoughts on the matter? 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you object to the adjective "strident" or the noun "anti-abortionist" ? Wes sideman (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it is redundant to include both. Helm's opposition to abortion seems fairly self-evident from the amendment itself.3Kingdoms (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

From many reliable sources, Helm's opposition to abortion was on the extreme right of the political spectrum. We could include examples of how he supported total bans on abortions, including in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life was in danger, and I'd be happy to expand the paragraph to include that, or we could go with an adjective. Wes sideman (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel like that should go on his page. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

So add it to his article. Of course, this is already there: "Helms quickly became a "star" of the conservative movement,[36] and was particularly vociferous on the issue of abortion. In 1974, in the wake of the US Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, Helms introduced a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited abortion in all circumstances,[37] by conferring due process rights upon every fetus." Wes sideman (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I am little confused. My point is that Helm's opposition is already self-evident, so I do not see the point in bringing it up again in the article. Also, this is a rather minor point. I mostly wanted to discuss the polling cited, showing support for the amendment.3Kingdoms (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You brought up the "strident anti-abortionist" phrase as a problem yourself, so I don't know why you're confused. Wes sideman (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I am confused because your posts have focused on showing that Helms was strongly against abortion, something I never disputed. Helms's opposition is well documented on his page and is fairly self-evident on this page given what the amendment does. Calling him a "strident anti-abortionist" seems redundant and abortionists is a somewhat loaded term. I hope that clears it up.3Kingdoms (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you that the phrase "strident anti-abortionist" is accurate and not loaded, and if you have an alternative description of the late senator that you'd like to suggest, I'm all ears. Wes sideman (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikitionary defines abortionist, pro-abortionist, and anti-abortionist as a derogatory term.[1]3Kingdoms (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Why would you lie about something that is so easily checked? Abortionist and pro-abortionist include the note (derogatory). Anti-abortionist does not. Wes sideman (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I read derogatory as referring to the word before not after it. Abortionist is the only one labeled as chiefly derogatory and sometimes offensive. Given that, I think in general any derived term of abortionist should be removed. If I may ask why do you feel that it is needed to keep that phrase in? For me once again it seems unneeded with Helm’s opposition already well documented and self evident. Finally please do not jump to the conclusion that I was lying. I made a mistake. Thank you. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, in principle, to calling Helms a strident anti-abortionist. That said, the currently cited source is too weak to justify that analysis. It mentions that Helms was "anti-abortion" in a list of his beliefs, as part of a quote by "long-time political observer Earl Black" (maybe Earl Black (political scientist)). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll work on the sourcing. I'm not the one who originally introduced the phrase, but I also have no problem with it, and I'm sure it will not be difficult to source it. Wes sideman (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If Black does not call him an "anti-abortionist" then I really do not see a reason to include it. Saying he was strongly anti-abortion would be better although I still think it is unneeded as Helms's opposition is pretty self-evident.3Kingdoms (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Polling

Dividing the discussion to talk about polling for it. I think the Marist poll warrants being included. While it does not say Helms Amendment it asks Americans is they oppose funding for abortion overseas which is exactly what the Amendment prohibits. Also, other sources connect it to the Amendment. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is pure WP:COATRACK and should be called out as such. No. Wes sideman (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Most major policy pages have polling information. If anything were “coatrack” it is the extended coverage of the Mexico City Policy which is a different item. --3Kingdoms (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Strident"?

One problem with describing Helms as a "strident antiabortionist" as is done in the Background and passage section of the article is that none of the cited sources do so. The UPI source, instead, describes him as the Senate's "leading antiabortionist". "leading" and "strident" are very different adjectives, as I think we'll all agree. The heading on one of the source articles (an obituary) does describe him as "divisive" but "strident" and "divisive" are not synonyms, and this description is probably the product of a relatively low level headline writer anyway. Pretty good synonyms for "strident" are pejoratives such as "shrill", "grating", and "excessive". So it would be good Wikipedia form to normally use them about an individual only when quoting a source and not, of course, in Wikipedia's voice. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the problems with requiring every single adjective to be referenced to an exact duplicate in a source is that we don't do that. "Strident" is fine. Other synonyms for the word include "vocal", "outspoken", and "vociferous", which he was, on this subject. Listing the worst synonyms out of a list of 60 words isn't an argument. It's frankly quite ridiculous that you're so set on changing one adjective. Helms was a strident antiabortionist. You know this. So why are you trying to soften his image in this one article? The man wanted all abortions outlawed, in every case, with no exceptions, even going so far as to extend his influence to other countries with the very amendment that this article is about. If you're really married to removing that adjective, start an RfC, because you haven't offered one valid reason here for doing so. Wes sideman (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There have been plenty of valid objections, such as his view being self-evident so why include? A point you have not addressed since this began. When you save “soften” his image you seem to be implying a nefarious motive for wanting it removed. No one here has accused you of wanting to keep it because you believe it will “blacken” his image. We are entitled to that same level of respect. Given that none of the sources use the phrase “strident anti-abortionist” I see no reason to include it. Regardless of one’s views on the man and his policies we are to be objective and some of us question how fair using said phrase is.3Kingdoms (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

No one is asking for "an exact duplicate" adjective. This is a straw man argument. We go by sources here, not gut feelings. The first and best source on your list, the only one which pairs "antiabortionist" with an adjective, uses the adjective "leading" (i.e. "principal", "foremost", "preeminent") which is nowhere near "strident". "Strident", since you apparently don't realize it, refers to the style of one's argumentation, not the substance of the positions taken.Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I would check the sources at the end of that sentence if I were you, as you apparently missed a few adjectives. Wes sideman (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's see. I noticed "imaginative", "outspoken" (but that's substantially less negative than "strident"). One source did say that Helms was "vociferous", which also isn't as negative as "strident", but that source is a miserable one anyway because it self describes as a "Magazine of Feminist, Progressive Thinking", which, of course, isn't going to say neutral things about Helms. In fact, I'd have figured that it would have said he was strident, but instead it showed a little restraint. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You're skipping a lot of text that exists in every one of those sources, and this exercise in pedantry is not going to get you to your goal of removing an adjective for no good reason. I suggest you start an RfC so that other editors can point out how insane this quest is. Have a good day. Wes sideman (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Of the four people who have discussed this topic you are the only one firmly for keeping it. If you feel strongly that you are right and think an RFC will support your argument, go for it. Personally, I think discussing here with other people joining would be better for now. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wes you restored “strident anti-abortionist” saying that the talk page supports its inclusion. Right now the opposite is the case, with you being the only one strongly in favor. I would like to hear from more people, but the talk page as of now does not support its inclusion.

Other synonyms for the word include "vocal", "outspoken", and "vociferous" - those three words are in three separate sources describing Helms' anti-abortionist stance. There are more but I don't see the need to WP:REFBOMB a single sentence; it's already too many, put there by me just to show that your arguments against the word are spurious. You have stated no valid reason for removing it. Again, if you think your arguments are valid, why haven't you started an RfC? Wes sideman (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that as of right now 3 people are not convinced it should be included. Why not use one of the three words you pointed out to describe Helms plus anti-abortion. Since none of the sources use anti-abortionist why include? I have not started an rfc because I do think it is warranted yet. If you feel strongly that one is needed go for it.

I don't need to create one, because the article is fine as it is. Also, you just said "none of the sources use anti-abortionist", which is yet another lie, or inaccuracy, or oversight, or whatever polite word you prefer (let me know). That exact phrase in this source is already cited.Wes sideman (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see it anywhere in the article. Again more people right now are against the wording than for. You are the only one in favor. If you believe so strongly in a RFC you are free to ask. Accusing me of lying is not a good way of getting me to accept your argument.

Just checked, google does show the line in the article, but it is not there when I click on the article. Maybe it was taken out? It only says “ Named after Senator Jesse Helms, the amendment prevents the use of aid for abortion as a family planning method, or to coerce women into having terminations.”

It's also in the UPI source, which is already in the reflist as well. Either start an RfC or WP:DROPTHESTICK. I do not care which. Wes sideman (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for linking the article, although it does seem a little dated to use the term (1987) it does use it. If you wish to ask the others who discussed this if they think this is enough to include I am all for. However, my core point was still not that Helms was called this once (he was a polarizing man to say the least), but that it is warranted in being included which I still do not think is the case. As it stands it still 3 to 1 for people who are disinclined to keep it. Finally since you have repeatedly brought up RFC I don’t understand why you insist I make one when I already explained why I don’t think it is needed. If you think it is needed and it will decide in you favor go for it, but I do intend right now to make one. Thank you

Request for comment created since both sides remain convinced of their argument.3Kingdoms (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) There is a strong consensus to rephrase the description of Jesse Helms from "strident anti-abortionist" to "prominent opponent of abortion". This is one of those rare RFCs where two sides that appeared initially to be strongly opposed to each other ended up settling on a mutually agreeable compromise. I don't count a single editor involved in this discussion who was clearly opposed to the compromise wording, though one editor still preferred the wording "anti-abortionist" over "opponent of abortion". The other two questions were withdrawn too early for any consensus to be found on them, even a declaration of no consensus. Loki (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Question: Should the description of Jesse Helms as a "Strident anti-Abortionist" be included on the page? It appears on the first sentence of paragraph 4.

Question 2: Should the section mentioning the poll that says 77% of Americans oppose funding for abortion overseas be included?

Question 3: Should the discussion of the attempted repeal in 2021 be included?

3Kingdoms (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) 03:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Procedural close (or withdrawal) requested - please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Creating_an_RfC for advice on how to do this properly. Specifically, more than one question in one RfC isn't allowed. Similarly, "Overuse of RFCs doesn't help: It is rare for a single article, or a single editor, to have more than one or two productive RFCs open at a time. Before starting a lot of RFCs, please check in on the RFC talk page for advice." Wes sideman (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

My bad. Removed the two additional questions.

• Include - it's two words, it's accurate, and it's the quickest way to sum up his position and add context for readers unfamiliar with the late senator. His own article includes the phrase "was particularly vociferous on the issue of abortion" - vociferous is one of several synonyms for "strident" that are sourced at the end of that sentence. The argument against including it was basically WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Wes sideman (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude Citing WP:Impartial. This is a deliberate attempt to cast both Helms and the amendment in a negative light. The article is a about a law originally passed by the U.S. Senate by a 52 to 42 vote (not sure what the House margin was but obviously it was a majority). This is not an article about Helms personally and there is no good encyclopedic reason to bring up subjective views of his demeanor. The fact that some sources do, doesn't obligate us to follow suit. When dealing with reliable but biased sources we don't go out our way to duplicate the bias. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude I agree with GTM's reasoning. As well I find Helms's opposition to abortion to be self-evident, so I do not think it is needed. While one source calls him an "anti-abortionist" it is from 1987. I do not find that enough reasoning to include. Also, strident seems to have a negative connotation. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Include. It is clearly on-topic. If this was any normal amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act then it would be a bit random to mention it but as this one directly concerns abortion it is helpful to provide this directly relevant context. If people object to "strident", which I can see a reasonable objection to, then maybe "prominent anti-abortionist" or "prominent opponent of abortion" would be more acceptable? Removing it entirely seems far less reasonable as that makes the article less useful to our readers. Remember that not all readers are Americans and not even all Americans will have background knowledge about Helms. Sure, Helms did not pass this alone but he was involved enough for his name to be attached to the amendment and nobody is suggesting removing all other mention of Helms from the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Good points even though you're arguing against my position. I had modified "strident antiabortionist" to something along the lines of your second wording suggestion but it was changed back by Wes sideman. The problem with "strident antiabortionist" is that it is clearly negative in connotation if not denotation. Googling the definition of "strident" one finds a. "loud and harsh, grating" along with b. "presenting a point, especially a contoversial one, in an excessively and unpleasantly forceful way". People we agree with we rarely describe as "strident". It's usually reserved for our opponents. As for "antiabortionist", it reminds me of "communist" and "anticommunist". Calling someone a "communist" was supposed to be an insult, but for people on the left, calling someone an "anticommunist" became a kind of insult. In short, I don't have a problem with prominent opponent of abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Prominent opponent of abortion" I do not have an issue with. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. As User:Goodtablemanners correctly points out above, the word strident has a negative connotation, so using it in wikivoice this way violates WP:NPOV. An alternative phrasing such as "prominent opponent of abortion" would avoid this problem. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• I like prominent opponent of abortion. I don't think it's redundant to give some background on where Helms is coming from on this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Wes sideman, would you oppose this option? I'm seeing a chance to close an RfC early and save some community time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wes sideman has been suspended from abortion topics, broadly construed, for a while. I notice someone else is complaining about him at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh you "noticed" that, eh? Nice coat-hanger. Maybe you also noticed that the editor who filed the spurious complaint is now blocked by admins. WP:BOOMERANG. Wes sideman (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I closed this RfC early in this diff and have now reversed that closure per a request at my talk page. I relisted the RfC and inserted a new timestamp just before 3K's original. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agrée with “prominent opponent of abortion”. That seems a neutral way of describing him. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude: "...a prominent opponent of abortion" seems acceptable. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "prominent". However, "anti-abortionist" is accurate and "opponent of abortion" is unnecessary extra words. "Prominent anti-abortionist" would be fine. Wes sideman (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support for and Mexico City Policy

A user objects to addition of a poll that shows most Americans oppose the funding of abortion overseas. Their objection is rested on the belief that since it does not mention the Helms Amendment directly it should not be included. I feel given that the Helms Amendment is directly tied with the question it is not a reach to connect the two. Furthermore, other sources have already done so House Democrats Vote to Fund Elective Abortions Overseas with U.S. Tax Dollars | National Review, Poll: Majority support legal limits on abortion, oppose taxpayer funding | America Magazine Hyde Amendment not in Biden’s budget, signaling abortion policy change - Deseret News Thus I do not see a reason not to mention the polling or maintain it is not connected to the Helms Amendment.

With regards to the Mexico City Policy, I do not see why its history is mentioned here. It was a separate policy enacted a decade later. The current wording says "The Mexico City Policy is a direct result of the Helms Amendment of 1973": Yet the article does not say that. Instead the mention is that the Helms Amendment is stricter than the Mexico City Policy:

"In practice, it has also been used to prohibit the use of federal funding for all abortions even in the circumstances of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the pregnant person, exceptions that have been allowed in other areas of U.S. international abortion law and policy, such as the Mexico City Policy when it has been in place."

So, I really do not see the point of having its history discussed. I do believe it should be in the see also section, but do not think it belongs in the main article in its current form.  I hope that explains my position well enough and would like to hear from others. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you don't see why the Mexico City Policy is mentioned here. I didn't add it, but I looked at the sourcing, and the sourcing explicitly discusses the policy and the connections to the Helms Amendment. If you really wanted to improve the article, you could add more references from a multitude of reliable sources. Wes sideman (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The policy discussion is that Helms is stricter than the MCP that is not reflected in the current wording. As a separate policy I do not see why we need to include its history here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Already explained that the sources explain how closely they are linked. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Wes sideman (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither source on the Mexico City policy says they are closely linked. I do not understand your “drop the stick” claim. You are the only person who has opposed the inclusion of the polling and the removal of the Mexico City policy. No one else has weighted in which is why I made this thread that you also said I should do. Your adamant opposition to the inclusion of the polling I do not understand since you have never addressed the fact that I have multiple sources linking the Marist poll to the Amendment itself. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I somewhat weakly oppose mentioning the poll. We have sources that mention both the amendment and the poll, but not sources that draw much of a connection between the two. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I understand your point, even though I disagree. It seems to come down to interpretation of the sources. For me it's not a stretch to include polling gauging support for something and then linking it to the policy that does just that even if not mentioned. Anyway, what is your view of the section regarding the Mexico City Policy? 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What sources support "The Mexico City Policy is a direct result of the Helms Amendment of 1973"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

While I feel this is really nitpicking at individual words now, I removed "direct result", edited the sentence, and added a source. The connection is pointed out by countless sources. I'm happy to add 50 more if that's what it takes to satisfy all editors. Wes sideman (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No source says MCP is a direct result of Helms. KFF mention of is:

"In practice, it has also been used to prohibit the use of federal funding for all abortions even in the circumstances of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the pregnant person, exceptions that have been allowed in other areas of U.S. international abortion law and policy, such as the Mexico City Policy when it has been in place."

Wes has since added two sources that says some anti-abortion activists wanted to go further which eventually led to the MCP. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Most of the connection is being drawn by 3Kingdoms himself. It's WP:SYNTHESIS. Wes sideman (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are three additional sources linking polling support to the amendment. [2],[3], & [4]

Newsweek - not a reliable source, check WP:NEWSWEEK

Catholic News Agency - obviously POV source on its face

Forbes article mentions the Knights of Columbus poll once, in passing, and points out that the Knights are an anti-abortion group.

For a good explanation of why that poll was deeply flawed in the first place, you can read this article. Wes sideman (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Inclusion of Marist Poll

Should a link to the 21 January 2022 America magazine article reporting a Marist poll showing 54% opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion be included in the article on the Helms Amendment? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. It's WP:V. Marist is a good pollster and information about public opinion related to taxpayer funding of abortion seems germane to the article. But I wonder why you opened this RFC? This doesn't seem like a controversial edit to me.

Groceryheist (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Please answer Yes or No with a brief explanatory statement in the Survey. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion is for.

Discussion

References