Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Criticism of the organization's name

The organization's name (Planned parenthood) seems inconsistent with their readily visible motivation (open sexuality, pro-abortion, whatevs). Do they ever help potential parents plan? It seems they're more in the business of lobbying for prevention of unplanned parenthood. I haven't a source for this, but it may be worth mention. --Johnruble 02:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The organization definitely does a lot of political work and lobbying, and their status as an abortion provider is well-known (and well-covered in the article). However, just looking at their homepage, PP does provide a wider range of services to patients, including prenatal care and regular GYN exams. I know women who routinely visit their offices for annual exams (particularly because their services are often the most affordable option for low-income individuals), so PP is not as limited to the work that is, admittedly, most visible to the public. Of course, if you have sources for criticism of the name, they could be included in the article, but they cannot simply be your own criticisms. - Tapir Terrific 03:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at their website. The word "abortion" appears 3,710 times. according to google The word "diaper" only appears 7 times. according to google Perhaps they should change their name to "Planned Barenhood." I am a pro-choice libertarian, and I think abortion should be legal. But those google searches show that the organization is not about "parenthood." Grundle2600 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try honesty for a change. The word "contraception" produces 6,040 results using Google. Moreover, Google spits out 6,140 results for pregnancy and 2,080 for prevention Rilixy (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, the term "baby" and its equivalents only appears 301 times . . . what a disparity. link GreetingsEarthling (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Largest Abortion Provider in the World?

I know that PP is the largest abortion provider in the country, but I've never seen it claimed that it's the largest in the world. Can we get a source for this? Viciouslies 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I can't confirm this as I wasn't the one who said that - but seeing as PP in the U.S. is actually a branch of a larger international group by the same name, it's entirely possible that the American branch is being confused somehow with the international group as a whole. Although, it's worth noting that if it's the largest abortion provider in the U.S., it is one of the largest providers in the world, because the U.S. has a huge population and (mostly) allows abortion to be legal. So, teh American branch might still be the largest provider. However, I'd have to wonder if there's a Chinese provider that does more of them than PP's U.S. branch, considering China's got more than 3 times the population of the U.S., and is fairly well-known for being much more accepting of abortion than a lot of other countries are, including the U.S. (in part - though not necessarily totally - because they've had bigger problems with high population growth). So either way, this can't be included without a source! ;) Runa27 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt China has any real need for Planned Parenthood (although they might encourage them if for no other reason then to put a pretty face on China's so-called family planning policies). From what I've read, women in China have very little choice in regard to pregnancy. If the child is wanted by the state, the pregnancy is allowed to continue. If the child is not wanted by the state, the pregnancy is terminated with very little fanfare or regard for the wishes of either parent. References include:

Frank Loy essentially begging to support China's program

gendercide in India and China

a scholarly treatment

Let's blame Bush and the Pope —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimScott (talk • contribs) 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry everyone. Thanks SineBot. Where would we be without our faithful bots, eh? ;-) JimScott (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit late, but I have never been to China and my parents are Chinese born and raised in Saigon (although everyone before that was actually born and raised in China) so I really don't have a clue about what China is like these days, what with technology and the rule which they can only have one kid. However, I have to add that Chinese usually encourage abortions only because they want sons. If that isn't the case, most of the time they usually do not want to get abortions. I know of many people who are Chinese and would never abort — some in my own family and even people who got pregnant in high school and/or were raped — because they think it's wrong and Chinese usually love children. I think most Chinese in China still wish they could have more children. They even have this phenomenon: as you can only have one kid and most Chinese prefer sons, not everyone can be lucky and some people do get girls. Then they like to name the girls male names. Like imagine an American woman being named John Eric Baron or something like that. It's kinda crazy. Of course, not every Chinese family with a daughter is like that, but Zhang Ziyi is an example. Even though Beatrisa Liang's family had three

kids, they were all daughters and her name strangely resembles a male's. And I don't know why it is that Gong Li's family had five kids, she was the youngest, but she still got a male name? ★Dasani★ 04:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think that The Chinese government is the largest Abortion providers, ugh. This world has gone to hell in a hand basket.

Planned Parenthood, Sanger and eugenics

This article MUST deal directly with Sanger's (a major founding figure in the PP) history as a selective eugenics advocate. It would clarify a issue that many people use without any understanding of Planned Parenthood. This would give the article a chance to present planned parenthood's current position on Sanger's eugenicist views(which are the controversial ones). Without that information, it is difficult for people who read the article now to figure out where Planned Parenthood stands on eugenics, and its position on its founders history. Even better would be a statement of PP's views that would deal with the difficult question of providing free/low-cost abortion to minority neighborhoods(and I'm not saying that is necessarily a racist/eugenicist attitude). Perhaps DuBois's support for the original clinic (perhaps PP??), opened in Brooklyn, would help to clarify what the issue. Frankly, even Sanger's biography doesn't have a satisfactory treatment of her views on eugenics.

I cut out the sentence "Margaret's original intention in founding Planned Parenthood was to 'limit' the population of African Americans in New York City", which appears to stem from a misinterpretation of a comment by Sanger that she didn't want there to be (false) rumors that she was trying to limit the number of blacks in New York. There's more over in the discussion at Margaret Sanger.(not a very good one either)

I agree. Sanger's views on eugenics are worth a brief mention. However, such views were pretty much the norm among American intelligentsia before WWII. That's often overlooked.12.144.50.194 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No I think you mean in Nazi Germany.68.83.86.152 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I saw a comment the other day to the effect that Adolf got the idea from Margaret. Who knew! JimScott (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That comment does wonders for your credibility. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I wondered when your POV would become evident. I, like yourself most likely, am not quite learned enough nor have I lived long enough to be an expert upon or personally witness the events of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, there are people who have devoted enormous resources to the study of these times and we should let the results speak for themselves perhaps?

- "Partly inspired by eugenics efforts in the United States, Hitler's government began a national program to round up and sterilize the unfit." exerpt from an interview with Daniel J. Kevles [1], author of In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity.

- "And it was American Leftists upon whom Hitler principally drew for his 'inspiration' in the eugenics field." excerpt from a 2003 article by John Ray at FrontPage [2]

- Here's a new twist. Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr. blames Hitler's affinity for eugenics on Darwinism! Excerpt: "Where did Hitler get these ideas? He got them directly from Darwinian evolution." And, apparently, so did Sanger (reference point IV). [3]

- Perhaps Sanger journey into Eugenics and PP and the like were the result of PTSD. It would certainly be understandable given Sanger's vivid description of the death of one Mrs. Sachs in her autobiography and her subsequent vow to do anything within her power to prevent similar events in the future regardless of the cost.[4]

- Perhaps the end of eugenics, American style, was Hitler's doing. "the rise of Hitler-style eugenics with its grotesque and barbaric methods for eliminating "inferiors" horrified Americans. Realization of the full implications of eugenics abruptly halted racial reforms in the United States." excerpt from Ted L. DeCorte, Jr.'s article, Menace of Undesirables: The Eugenics Movement During the Progressive Era (presumably while he was at University of Nevada, Las Vegas in 1978).

I have no idea how you feel about these sources but I am sure there will be plenty of angst to go around as well as many supporting and opposing references. Such is the nature of history; to be written by the winners and re-written by the politically correct at first opportunity. BTW, perhaps comments regarding credibility should only apply in über-academic circles between colleagues. Everywhere else we're all just winging it the best we can, aren't we. JimScott (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that some choose to ignore history when it is inconvenient to their point of view. The elephant in the room is commonly referred to as The Negro Project. It seems quite well documented and thought out (and covers the Harlem clinic details as well). I find it interesting that Margaret's plans for black women are dismissed out of hand as either false or just normal for the time. She would, of course, bristle at either characterization, I am sure, since she strikes me as a woman who was quite sure of her beliefs and goals whether the modern age is comfortable with them or not. For anyone not acquainted with the project, feel free to check out the content. JimScott (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Those sources seem to fail Wikipedia's standards, for the most part. I see a geocities page, an "online sermon", FrontPage Magazine magazine, and other such sources. You would need better sources to suggest that anything more than that certain elements of the American right like to link Planned Parenthood to Hitler. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Health clinic" vs. "abortion clinic"

The last person to edit this page changed "health clinic" to "abortion clinic", noting that the phrase health clinic "was misleading." Though I feel strongly that any full-service reproductive health clinic ought to offer abortion services, I concede the POV issues. However, just changing the phrase "health clinic" to "abortion clinic" makes the article factually incorrect on two levels:

1. The figure of 900 centers refers to all Planned Parenthood centers. Not all Planned Parenthood centers offer abortion services. Typically, only the largest one or two Planned Parenthoods in a region or state perform abortions. Thus, the edited article overstates the number of abortion clinics Planned Parenthood operates.

2. The edited sentence implies that Planned Parenthood exists solely as an abortion provider. This is also incorrect. Planned Parenthood offers a number of services that I think anyone would refer to as "health services" no matter what their position on abortion (e.g., STD testing/treatment, cervical exams), as well as other services that some might not think of as health services, but which don't fall under the category of abortion (e.g., vasectomies, sexual education services).

I've re-edited the first paragraph to make this information clear while avoiding the "health clinic" terminology that some find to be POV. Any further suggestions on keeping NPOV while staying accurate would be welcome.

--Jfruh 13:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) $Insertformulahere$

Actually, the term "health clinic" is closer to being accurate in this case (as per what you've stated), and "abortion clinic" - owing to the combination of the inaccuracy of the term in this context as well as PP's controversial nature as a group that provides abortions - actually sounds more POV, because it sounds like it's trying to portray the organization as just a runner of "abortion clinics", which is obviously not actually all they do. But if you really think "health clinic" sounds weird, why not just be more vague? Call them just "clinics". ;) Runa27 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the paragraph suggesting the variety of "restrictions" on abortions is factually incorrect, particuarly on the fourth point. In fact, Planned Parenthood Federation of America has done large scale trials on various abortion procedures, and did a large scale trial and surveillance project on the use of Mifprestone (otherwise known as RU-486). Seeing as how their very own Annual Report [5] on page 9 indicates their tracking of the drug indicates that they DO care about how it fares I am modifing the fourth point. Moreover, all this talk about opposing supposed "restrictions" on the safety and efficiacy of abortion procedures and drugs ignores the fact that all abortion procedures and drugs are approved by the FDA and various other medical regulatory agencies, meaning so called "regulations" are attempts to regulate abortion above and beyond any other medical procedure or drug. SiberioS 19:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Could you consider adding the organisation's activities with respect to clinical trial initiation and management to the "Recent activities" section and/or to another section related to the topic in general? Courtland 07:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

International aspects of Planned Parenthood

Could someone provide a reference(s) for Planned Parenthood as an international organization rather than an American one to facilitate expansion of the article? Courtland 21:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The only problem I may see with that is that Planned Parenthood is different, vastly so, from the IPPF. In fact Planned Parenthood of America has its own international arm, as well as being involved with some of the region wide federations and the larger international federation. The thing you have to keep in mind is there all federations, which tends to make them a bit looser than other, more top down NGO's and the like. It should be mentioned though somewhere. User:SiberioS

Category - Abortion?

Is it correct to list an article in both a category (birth control) and a sub-category (abortion)? Because PP would fall under multiple headings (abortion, barrier contraception, well, really ALL of the sub-categories of birth control) it seems to me it would make more sense to just list it under 'birth control'. I would like to remove it from the 'abortion' sub-category.

• I agree with you, but I think that removing it from Category:Abortion would just serve to spark an edit-war between those who feel that Planned Parenthood is synonymous with "Abortions-R-Us" and those who have a more ... circumspect view. I'd suggest leaving it as it is for now - little harm comes from it. User:Ceyockey 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Activities section dismantled

I've broken down the recent activities section and retained the items in more topical sections. The reasoning here is that, as I noted in the edit summary, the section could (and looked like it had) become a magnet for tit-for-tat positive-negative postings of news items, and that should be avoided as it doesn't contribute to a well written encyclopedia article. No information was removed in this reorganization, which might not be easily determined by looking at the edit history and diffs (the moves result in some scrambled looking diffs). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Petition supported by American Life League to end government funding

I think that having a link to the petition at http://www.stopplannedparenthoodtaxfunding.com/ is a little much; it would be better to have a link to something that explains the context of this petition and that has a link from there to the petition. However, I've searched around ALL's site and STOPP's site to no avail ... which brings into question whether the petition is a personal effort on the part of someone who is co-opting the ALL brand for a purpose that isn't supported by ALL. If anyone can find any page of ALL's or STOPP's that contains a link to this petition page, let's see it. (ALL link = http://www.all.org/index.php; STOPP link = http://www.all.org/stopp/). If evidence in the form of a link to this petition from one of the supporting sites isn't produced one can only assume that they are not the people who are supporting the petition. From the tone of the two sites I can say that it would seem perfectly reasonable if either ALL or STOPP are supporting the petition, but without evidence that the petition really is from one of these organizations, it should be removed. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I really doubt the origin of the petition is that there is a section of STOPP (which is affiliated with ALL) entitled "Part 3: Defeating Government Funding of Planned Parenthood" which does not include a link to the petition .. this is exactly where the link would appear if it were legitimate. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If you guys check you the STOPP website now, you'll see the link to the petition prominently displayed. It is an official project of ALL. Andrew Flusche 03:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

265 mm

I see no evidence presented that PP gets 265MM from the US government, merely that it recieved a total of 265 from governments. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me that Planned Parenthood Federation of America would receive funding from non-US governments. There is an international organization that other governments would give to if they were so inclined. I imagine the plural 'governments' is because PP gets money from both the federal government and state governments.Lyrl 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

State and federal contributions should be separated; one does not want to give the impression that the US Federal Government supports PP to a greater extent than it actually does. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

One apparently does in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.123.1 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Critics of Planned Parenthood"

I'm sorry, but this section amounts to a collection of shrill anti-abortion/pro-life/anti-choice propaganda, some of it quite hysterical and all of it quite unbalanced. These websites and organizations should probably have their own articles and descriptions, but the links really have little to do in the Planned Parenthood article.

Ulrik

If anything, it shouldn't have its own link section, and the links should describe in some way the pro-life stance of the websites/organizations. Additionally, there should be at least two more links that hold a neutral or pro-choice stance to balance things out, because as a whole, especially with this section, it reads like an anti-PP article, with some neutral content included out of obligation, mostly.--Sean.ridgeley 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

fuck planned parenthood. Nothing but a bunch of inherently evil humanists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portillo (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When did it become an "inherently evil" thing to be concerned for human welfare?--Sean.ridgeley 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Let's all be civil. I hate planned parenthood, but this is an encylopedia, not a debate.Iamanadam 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mention of EC?

(EC means emergency contraceptive.) 195.35.160.133 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Martin.

I note that PP has a rather large section of their website devoted to their stance on EC, including such issues as refusal clauses and hospitals that fail to provide EC to rape victims. I see only one mention of EC in the article. Would others feel that PP's stance on availability of EC is worth mention? Kasreyn 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been some time since I posted this... does no one care? I will try to find the time to write up a short section on PP's strong support for availability of EC, as well as its outspoken condemnation of hospitals which do not provide it. Unless someone feels there is a problem with this, in which case I'm all ears.  :) Kasreyn 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

EC is certainly an important issue that PP focuses on, but for it to have its own section would seem to be a bit much. It's not so important that it deserves a long paragraph, mainly because it would through the balance off a little bit, at least in my estimation. EC is just a small part of PP, which is a behemoth organization with a multitude of issues. Still, I believe it deserves more mention than it currently has. Perhaps you could add something here. A mention of mifepristone aka RU-486 wouldn't hurt either. Killua 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a short paragraph with three sources from PP's website... how does it look? Kasreyn 22:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally good, except that mifepristone isn't contraception, it's an abortifacient. But other than that, a good addition. Killua 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sanger and eugenics

I personally don't care one way or the other, but I think it ought to be clear what the consensus is of the editors here. Is there a consensus that Sanger's advocacy of eugenics is not notable here, or is the consensus otherwise? I notice that language identifying Sanger as a proponent of eugenics was recently removed. Was this vandalism, or has there been some sort of previous decision here on the merits of mentioning this? Kasreyn 07:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it could not be notable. It was a guiding ideology of one of the founders of PP. I believe the removal was simple vandalism, and I'm returning the deleted portion. Killua 11:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, it needs a citation, that much is clear. Other than that, maybe it should be noted that a lot of people were proponents of eugenics at that time. It was fairly wide-spread before WWII, I believe, and so while today it might be a "notable" thing for people to call up in conjunction with PP, particularly those opposed to them, it really wasn't a big deal at the time. romarin [talk ] 12:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of people were proponents of eugenics back then, and certainly this needs a citation. But I wouldn't say its notability is limited to only those who oppose PP. I think we'd be doing history itself an injustice were we not to note that PP's founder was an outspoken eugenicist, just as we'd be doing history an injustice were we not to note that George Washington was a racist, even though "a lot" of people were racists back then. Killua 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree; it isn't something that needs to be hidden and I have nothing against it being included in the article. I just think it is important to contextualize it somehow, as it is heavily stigmatized today, whereas it was a very popular position at the time. Maybe even a brief mention in the footnote (once there is a citation) would be a good idea; what do you think? romarin [talk ] 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's antisemitism was also quite popular at the time. Do you really think that makes it less compromising? Fwend 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue seems fairly well covered (with sources) in the Margaret Sanger article. To me, the eugenics issue is something relevant to Sanger, but not to PP. I don't see how it's any more notable than that she was atheist, socialist, or believed that intelligent people should not like sex. Just as George Washington's racism is noted in his biographies but not in the History of the United States, I do not think Sanger's stand on eugenics should be included in the PP article. Lyrl 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point... personally, I'd tend to agree. I have no desire to hide or cover anything up, but we need to decide which aspects of PP's founders were important/notable to the founding and early guidance of PP, and which ones were merely incidental. I'd say Sanger's socialism would be equally, if not more notable, as PP has always (to my knowledge) operated for the benefit of everyone in society, not just those with disposable income. Of course, I could be wrong about that... the History section is rather sparse at the moment and really needs more info. Kasreyn 03:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with others that the history section here is quite lacking. Eugenics did have a lot to do with Sanger's actions, and it probably did influence a bit of PP's early actions. She believed certain people were undesirable (blacks, poor people, etc.) and sought to bring birth control more heavily to those populations. GW's racism might not be mentioned in the history section of the U.S. because we can't make that article too long. If it weren't mentioned in a book about the history of the U.S., something would be lacking.

All too often, figures or organizations from history are whitewashed. George Washington, Abe Lincoln, F.D.R., John F. Kennedy, etc. While I believe things do have to be taken into context to understand them, and we shouldn't be tremendously judgmental, these things must still be made known. Anyway, I'll work on trying to get some verifiable sources. Killua 15:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a fine line between whitewashing and blacklisting, and while I also agree that there is no real reason to keep information out, I also agree with Kasreyn that other beliefs held by Sanger were probably just as pertinent, and by highlighting one we may be skewing the evidence. Perhaps we should decide if we're going to include all of her political ideas/beliefs, or none, rather than picking and choosing. There is always the article on Sanger herself, if people want more information. romarin [talk ] 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, with regards to Sanger's attitude toward the poor: yes, she thought they could seriously benefit from birth control, but that was probably more related to the fact that they were poor partially because they had too many mouths to feed, and she saw that lowering the birth rate might help them get out of poverty. This has more to do with socialist political beliefs than eugenics. romarin [talk ] 16:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of four editors responding, I said "I don't see how it's notable", Kasreyn said "I see your point... personally, I'd tend to agree" (in response to my comment), romarin said "I also agree with Kasreyn" and "we may be skewing the evidence." While comments were made about possibly expanding the commentary on Sanger beyond her being a birth-control advocate, talking about summarizing how her belief in socialism influenced her actions, for example, the eugenics comment in its current state is opposed three to one. Lyrl 13:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You're correct that in its current state, it's opposed, but not just three to one, but four to zero. However, none of us agreed, save you, that the solution is to remove it entirely. Rather we thought there should be more mentioning, and perhaps putting some of it in context, and there should be sources. You removed it entirely, and there was no consensus in regards to that. Killua 22:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind the removal of the eugenics bit; until we reach a consensus on what other aspects of Sanger's personal beliefs were notable to her founding of PP, we probably shouldn't say anything at all about her beliefs. Nothing has been lost, since readers can still go to Margaret Sanger to learn about her beliefs. Kasreyn 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Margaret's views on eugenics and her use of PP as the tool to promote same are quite evident in The Negro Project article. Nothing speaks for itself as well as history, eh? JimScott (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics is very pertinent as her eugenics beliefs encompassed forced birth control and birth control is what Planned Parenthood is about. I also changed "supported some aspects of eugenics" to "was a eugenics supporter" because the only aspect she didn't support was killing already living children (which isn't a belief held by most eugenicists anyway). Neitherday 20:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Er... you do see the difference between forced birth control and birth control, right? MastCell ^Talk 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I very much do. However, a founder's views on forced birth control are definitely relevant in regards to an organization whose function is to provide birth control. Neitherday 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the "some aspects" bit, but the comment about eugenics being a popular movement at the time I believe is important for context. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Like many American intellectuals of the time" glosses over the controversial nature eugenics had even at the time and makes the view sound simply "of her time". How about this: "Sanger also supported of [eugenics], a controversial view at the time held by a significant number of intellectuals"? Neitherday 02:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's own article on the American Birth Control League, it states that one of the announced goals of the ABCL was "To enlist the support and coöperation of legal advisors, statesmen, and legislators in effecting the removal of State and Federal statutes which encourage dysgenic breeding."

The ABCL became the Birth Control Federation of America in 1939. Starting about this time, the BCFA ran the "Negro Project", under the supervision of Sanger and others. In 1940, at its annual meeting, the BCFA hosted a speech titled "Race Building in a Democracy" by Henry Fairchild, who had also given a speech the previous year to the American Eugenics Society entitled "Family Limitation Necessary to Eugenics in a Democracy".

Two years later the BCFA became Planned Parenthood through a simple name change. I think a strong argument could be made that a mention of eugenics is definitely pertinent to an article on Planned Parenthood, apart from Margaret Sanger's association with it. For example, Henry Fairchild remained a Vice President of Planned Parenthood until 1948. MisterSquirrel 02:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, you make the "Negro Project" sound insidious, but here's what the Margaret Sanger Papers Project at NYU's website says about it:

"...supervised by a special committee that included Margaret Sanger, Mary Lasker, and Clarence Gamble. It was guided by a national Negro Advisory Council made up of representatives of 25 major black organizations and universities, and included many prominent black leaders. With the help of local community organizations the Negro Project assembled clinical data to influence the adoption of clinics and contraceptive techniques primarily in the black communities of the South. The Negro Project managed two demonstration projects in Nashville, Tennessee and Berkeley County, South Carolina."[6]

So let's see, it focused on contraception in black communities and included representative leadership from within that same community. If that's all there is to this, it would be a stretch to use it to associate the BCFA with eugenics. Sources? --Sfmammamia 02:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources? Check out reference 93 under the Untangling the Deceptive Web heading. As someone once said, "You can fool some all of the time, all some of the time, but not all all of the time." JimScott (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanger's eugenics are of course still pertinent. Look at the Wiki article! You will see that donations were eagerly hoped for to abort black babies. Furthermore, PP has just finished testifying before Congress about their way-out-of-proportion abortions of blacks and Latinos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed already. As for your comment and black and latino clients of PP, what does that have to do with Sanger? Are you suggesting that voluntary access to safe abortion procedures and family planning services is a form of eugenics? Given it's a voluntary service, that's a bit of stretch.19:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanger held lots of views. They belong in her article, not this one.-Wafulz (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The implication of the "black and latino" remark, in the context of the rest of that comment, seems to insinuate that PP might be making a conspiratorial effort to forcibly abort minority babies. More accurately, the poor generally lack reproductive education and as a result are more likely to end up with unwanted pregnancies. Additionally, one of PP's major goals is to provide reproductive services to the poor who cannot otherwise afford it. Blacks and latinos are disproportionately poor in America, so it would only make sense that they would utilize these services more frequently. It's not a conspiracy, but an obvious and predictable statistical outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.51.144 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't abortion in the lead paragraph?

We just turned back an anonymous edit that added mentioned PP's provision of surgical abortions several times in the lead paragraph. This was a good revert, as this editor was anonymous and did not consult anyone before altering the lead paragraph. However, his edits, to me, actually seem like a good idea. Yes, abortion is discussed extensively in "facilities", but, given the modern abortion meme, isn't abortion an absolutely crucial part of any definition of PP? As noted in an earlier discussion, there is a sizable portion of the population that views PP as "Abortions-'R'-Us." What's more, abortion is mentioned several times on the front page of plannedparenthood.org--more than any one of their other services. It is clear that abortion is at the forefront of any discussion of Planned Parenthood, so I propose that we mention it prominently in the lead paragraph, in a manner similar to the one used by 69.136.96.119. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BCSWowbagger (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We do have this sentence in the lead paragraph: It is a vocal political advocate of comprehensive sex education and holds a pro-choice position on the issue of abortion and expression of sexuality. Politically, pp is most active (lobbying, etc.) on the abortion issues. But in actual clinic practice, they do many more well-woman and bc visits than abortions. Many of their clinics do not even have facilities to perform abortions. I am hesitant to emphasize the organization's political activity over its clinical practice - just because people have certain perceptions (i.e. PP being 'abortions-r-us) does not make that perception truth.

Also, on the specific edits that were recently reverted, it seperated out 'health services' and 'reproductive services' from abortion. But many people consider providing abortion to be a health and reproductive service. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A fair point. But the fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood is the nation's leading provider of abortions, an *extremely* controversial issue that has made Planned Parenthood a leading crusader on one side of a raging global argument. PP is included in WikiProject Abortion for precisely that reason. Only mentioning its involvement with the issue in a sentence couched between "comprehensive sex education" and "expression of sexuality" seems to be a reduction of the centrality of abortion to Planned Parenthood's significance. And that's what we're documenting on Wikipedia: entities and their significance in world affairs.

But I agree that separating "health and reproductive services" from "abortion" would have to be handled delicately, and would probably be POV. What about something like, "Its status as the United States' leading provider of surgical abortions has put it in the center of the national debate over that issue."? --BCSWowbagger 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That wording seems OK. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of "wardrobe malfunction". Really, that's just a way to sugar-coat the word "abortion", and since this is an encyclopedia, people are entitled to be able to read things literally. Part of that entails not having to decipher what "health and reproductive services" means. I don't think having "pro-choice" covers the entirety of PP. They also perform abortions, and this is well known. I mean John Edwards (presidential candidate) is pro-choice, but does that mean he goes out and performs abortions? Your doctor can be in the field of "health and reproductive services" to some extent, but does he or she perform abortions? There's a big difference between being "pro-choice" and being in "reproductive services" and performing abortions. This isn't really any excuse, as this is part of what the organization does, and part of what it is known for. To exclude that makes this article incomplete. Zchris87v 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Zchris87v, you seem to be responding to an outdated thread. Abortion is mentioned in the lead now, in a way that seems appropriate to me. If there's something else about the lead that you feel could be improved, could you please post about it more specifically? -- Sfmammamia 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did a great job of somehow missing the word when reading over it. This is why I need to go to sleep instead of messing around on wikipedia at 3 a.m. Zchris87v 06:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Uggh, Controversey...

I know that a "controversey/criticisms" section has long been a backdoor way to get POV in stories, and I'm probably as guilty of it as anyone in articles about things I find distasteful. I know people get mad when you want to meticulously document the probelems with x subject you dislike while ignoring it's upsides. (See Pat Robertson or Bill O'Reilly, for example) And I know that it's not fair to just delete criticisms for the sake of "balance."

HOWEVER

When all criticisms are from unverifiable sources, or sources so biased that they are repeated only on similarly biased sites, the creation of a quality article is made impossible. This is because, in many instances, the allegations made are so incendiary that the accused camp rarely dignifies them with a response, making meaningful balance impossible. Why, then, should only the inflammatory content be given encycolpedic status? (For example, we could put a "criticism" section under every politician on wikipedia from David Icke, writing "critics claim that Representative ___ is actually an alien lizard person bent on destroying the world and eating babies..." Perhaps they do, but who the hell cares.

Maybe the criticisms in this article aren't THAT unfounded, but I haven't heard anyone come out to defend them. If they did, it would probably be easier to just use their verified sources to improve the article. My suggestion is that either alternative sources be found from reputable media outlets, not press releases, to substantiate the criticsms or those without same should be removed.

If this is entirely too distatesful, more should be done in the text of the article to explain the chain of custody fo the crticisims. Weasel words are still possible in a footnoted sentence. Balonkey 19:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, good editor, they're not even close to that unfounded. They're not even in the same ballpark. Or planet, for that matter. If you actually go and click on the sources, they link directly to the criticisms, which is what the section is about, but the first one (about the killing pro-lifers ad, which I have seen) links directly to the video, so it's tough to deny. If you want, we could ferret out an article from a reliable source saying directly: "THIS IS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD!!!" but I don't think that's necessary. The second link (about PP's refusal to turn over documents), contains both the criticism needed for relevancy and a direct link to the related story in the Indianapolis Star. And the third refers to the "Tell-A-Friend" program, which existence is easily proven with a Google search. So, yes, the idea that these criticisms are comparable to "alien lizard people," or even whatever it is you've written on Pat Robertson's page, is simply silly. I oppose your measure in all respects. (BTW, rereading this, I don't mean to come across harshly, but I fear that I do. My apologies.) --BCSWowbagger 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's good that you replied to this, although you seem to have misunderstood most of it. Otherwise I woudln't have looked at all the sources used. I'll ignore what's irrelevant about your understanding of my reply and attempt to addrses the article itself. The first link with the, Cartoon about "killing" prolifers (to borrow your skewed parlance) is no longer available from the PP website and is only sustained from the blog website of a critic of planned parenthood. You could at least agree that it is worth mention that Planned Parenthood removed the offensive cartoon from the website? Link 14 is from an anti-choice PRESS RELEASE. That means it wasn't even printed by a mainstream publication. I'm not sure where you see a link to the Indianapolis star, i didn't see it when checking the notes, but perhaps we could cut out the middleman? Put a link to the star directly? Link 15 is misleading-- the sentence preceding it makes claims about secret abortions--this is not mentioned AT ALL in the article cited. As a matter of clarity, this should be edited. Link 16 is from lifenews.com. That's not neutral and could hardly be the best place to find that information.

It's hardly likely that either of us will come close to agreeing on this issue, but you would probably have a BETTER interest than I in IMPROVING this section. Rather than considering two seconds of google work encyclopedic quality research, try 10 minutes on lexis. I bet you could find a newspaper article from a major national paper to replace every single disputed reference. If the criticisms are as true as you claim, this should be no problem. Balonkey 05:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood my own contention that we have to retain links to the criticisms, from POV sources, as long as they based in fact... which they are. If what's there isn't good enough for you, I'll further confirm them, but, since it is a criticism section, we have to retain the criticisms. That's the point of the section--not adding NPOV articles that discuss the criticism second- or third-hand. We are discussing, in an NPOV way, the anti-PP POV. Of course, if you insist on providing better documentation of PP's various indiscretions, so be it.

More specifically: "The first link with the, Cartoon about "killing" prolifers (to borrow your skewed parlance)..." I don't see how it's skewed: the cartoon shows the killing of pro-life protesters through decapitation and vaporization. "You could at least agree that it is worth mention that Planned Parenthood removed the offensive cartoon from the website?" Yes... and it is mentioned: The link from its main page was quickly removed after some criticism began.

So, on to the better documentation you demanded. First, we have news stories about that video, which I actually saw when it was still on the PPGG homepage. CNS News; [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45664 WorldNetDaily]. And better links to the video itself, now that PPGG has removed it without comment: MP4; ZIP; YouTube. There are also stories on it at LexisNexis, but I don't think that linking to a subscription service is necessary.

Issue 2 (Link 14): It is indeed from a press release. The link to the Indy Star is in Link 15, which I obviously didn't make clear. (More on that link later). I don't see your point about how it's a press release, though. The statement reads: Planned Parenthood has been accused in several cases of agreeing not to report statutory rape to the authorities. The press release proves that that statement (they have been accused) is true. However, I can see your point here about it perhaps being a hysterical minority view, so I propose that we add this link to a now-removed testimonial on PP Golden Gate's website: Web Archive: Shared Stories, which is the basis for many of these charges, as well as an article about it from the American Life League, a rather well-known pro-life NPO: [7]. We should also avoid using a PDF for anything, because, very simply, they're unnecessary. You are right, in this case, that we can get more material from LexisNexis. I found some, and, when I get the chance, I will update the paragraph accordingly.

As an aside, I should note that WProj:Abortion has a guideline of using pro-choice and pro-life, rather than anti-choice or pro/anti-abortion, as terminology. It's not required that this terminology be used on Talk pages ('specially since WProj's can't require anything), but it is requested.

Issue 3 (Link 15): The Indy Star story I accessed through LexisNexis: "Ruling may open door for criminal prosecution of Planned Parenthood". Since that's only one example, here's some more: [8], and [9]. BTW, [10] and similar instances would make a good addition to the section.

Also, "secret abortions"? I see no mention of that in the WP article. Were you referring to something else?

Issue 4 (Link 16): This is the easiest to prove, and I won't even hunt newspapers for it: PPGG "Tell-A-Friend" program.

So, on the whole, I suppose you're right: this section of the article needs further citation, as above, and mention more of the plentiful criticism of Planned Parenthood. I will attempt to update accordingly at the next opportunity, hopefully sometime tonight.

Re second sentence of your response: you didn't even look at the sources before accusing them of wild inaccuracy? That smacks of an attempt to push your own POV.

I hope we can improve this section together. --BCSWowbagger 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I ever accused a section of "wild inaccuracy." If I wanted to push my own POV, then I'd want this article to be as is. Links to hackneyed websites to make criticisms of PP claims push it better than what I'm trying to do, see mainstream sources, rather than the POV cites, be used to substantiate it. I fully grant that i didn't read every word of each source before raising eyebrows about whether or not they could be improved. But having done so, I'm now sure of it. It's funny how angrily you responded to my criticisms of the article only to agree with their overall premise: that if these criticisms are legitimate they could be better substantiated.

By way of analogy, it would be the right decision to put a claim like "some critics have claimed the war in Iraq is an imperialst action." in the criticisms section of a relevant article. That's not POV, and we can make this article better by keeping that in mind. We agree that it's good to document these claims and even to provide footnotes to the POV sections ot substantiate them. What i'm saying, however, is that if the exact same claim is made by two people (keeping my liberal analogy) you should cite a more credible one. So, better a footnote to a university professor in a peer reviewed international affiars journal than a footnote to my friend jake's blog. Keep in mind, the exact same claim is made on both, and it's irrelevant whether or not you agree with the POV. Curiously, would you use those exact citations in a college/ or even high school paper, and expect a good grade? (Whether or not the paper was pov)

I think some of the factual issues I raised were actually resolved- the secret abortions page was removed and the removal of the cartoon video was documented. No need for vitriol.

Really, "criticism" sections are always a sticky part of wikipedia articles. My thought is, make all such sections look good, and let the POV complainers deal with it later. I'm not concerned about whether or not the section is POV, i'm thinking it's poorly worded.

I'm sorry for using the term "antichoice" instead of "prolife" it's all really the same load of crap. And of us can agree on that for opposite reasons :) I keep that stuff relegated to the talk page for a reason.

We've actually done a good bit to ipmrove this article together :) Balonkey 00:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset tab) I thought, when you described the sources as "incendiary" and "inflammatory", and making a comparison to "alien lizard people" articles, you were questioning the veracity of the statements themselves--which got my back up, since I was watching as a few of those stories broke a year or more ago. I have always agreed that better sources are always a good idea; I didn't think this is what you were going for. Sorry.  ;) (Ah, the joys and travails of non-verbal communication. ;) ) Admittedly, I don't know what you're talking about with the secret abortions; I haven't been to this page for a while, and, by the time I saw your post, at least, it seems it was removed.

As for choice/life, there's no way you could have known about that. So I'm going to start adding cites, and I'm glad we worked this out. --BCSWowbagger 04:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Must it?

I'd say delete this line: Due to their pro-choice stance Planned Parenthood generally supports Democratic Party candidates, though it has invested significantly in political efforts amongst Republicans who uphold a pro-choice stance.

Not only is it hideously constructed but it doesn't say anything other than planned parernthood supports (presumably) pro-choice democrats and pro-chioce republicans because pp is...suprise...pro-choice. The only real fact gained here is not directly stated, but the implicit point that democrats tend to be pro-choice more often than republicans, but that's not germane to this particular article. "Who uphold a pro-choice stance..." if you have to keep this damn thing, could be deleted and the article could read "pro-choice republicans." I didn't do this, though, because it really seems like the whole thing should be deleted.

If PP invests in political campaigns, that would be relevant (not which party, just that they support pro-choice candidates). But I believe they would revoke their non-profit status if they actually supported a political candidate - they are only allowed to lobby on issues. So unless someone finds something about PP being involved in elections, I support deletion of that sentence. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy/neutrality

I took a crack at the "neutrality-check" section. Mostly, the issue seems to be making the wording a little more NPOV. I have removed the claim about "informed consent" as it related to abortion/breast cancer links. No such links are known to exist. The National Cancer Institute examined the question in 2003 and concluded as much; no major scientific or medical organization has ever found that such a link exists, despite a wealth of research on the topic. It exists mostly as a pseudoscientific scare tactic to circumvent the abortion debate. It would be fine to state that PP opposes such "informed consent", so long as it's made clear that their opposition is grounded on the NCI's conclusion and scientific consensus, not on a desire to perform more abortions and risks be damned. MastCell 01:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The "neutrality" tag refers one to the talk page, but I see nothing here about why the tag was placed. As such, I am removing it. If there are ongoing concerns, please specify them here on the talk page when replacing the tag. MastCell 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

I've also trimmed the External Links. See WP:EL for policy guidelines; on controversial topics, "critical" links should not greatly outnumber "favorable" ones. The site claiming to connect PP with child molesters was beyond ridiculous and really had no place in a serious discussion or article. I removed one of the 2 links to fightpp.com; there's already one link to that site; 2 is overkill. I've also removed "Life Dynamics" link - it seems to be the same organization that runs fightpp.com. Again, 1 link is enough. MastCell 01:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MastCell, I don't think that WP:EL would apply here, because while one can argue that the opposing links outnumber the supporting the actual number of opposing external links isn't overwhelming. There are only three links.

Also I don't see why the Child Predators link is beyond ridiculous. It seems to have some facts... maybe you can explain that? Chooserr 02:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL states: "An article can link to pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article". The page alleging that PP protects child rapists is not neutral, and if the page does contain any facts, they are buried under a load of inflammatory allegations. Without commenting on the accuracy or lack thereof, such sites are not appropriate for linking from Wikipedia. Also, all 3 "critical" links are from Life Dynamics. Use 1. WP:EL applies. 3 or 4 links from the same critical site overwhelm the total list. Therefore, the link to Life Dynamics itself can stay. Including the others violates WP:EL. MastCell 06:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, MastCell, but if I am reading your post correctly, you believe that a reference containing facts (however horrendous) should not be included if it might offend, or fail to coincide with, the POV of the article in which it might be included? I, for one, would be very surprised to find a neutral and accurate discussion of why PP does not follow Federal and state laws regarding the reporting of statutory rape on the PP web site or in their literature anywhere. Aside from being legal suicide in any such overt admission, it certainly wouldn't fly well with the general public either. So where would you propose to find this discussion? I suggest that it might be far more transparent to include the so-called offensive link and point out to the owners of that link that their case might be better represented if they toned down the rhetoric and more accurately reported the facts of the matter. Of course that might make their position more tenable which might offend PP even more ... but, as purveyors of fact and neutrality, this should NOT be our concern. Right? JimScott (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And again... an inline external link to the main Life Decisions International site in the body of one of the paragraphs. It doesn't belong there. The paragraph already contains a citation to an LDI page - linking to the main site itself is overkill and advertisement. MastCell 22:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

POV discussion of pharmacists' conscience clause

I reworded the following language from the article:

'Planned Parenthood ... opposes so-called conscience clauses which sanction pharmacists' refusal to provide FDA-approved contraceptive medication.'

The phrase "so-called" is inherently POV, and the fact that contraceptives are FDA-approved is irrelevant to the issue. This sentence reads as a pro-PP screed more than an attempt at a neutral treatment of the subject. Miraculouschaos 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose "conscience clauses" could be in quotes, rather than "so-called", but the fact remains that it's a loaded term used by one side of the abortion debate and not the other. I guess "FDA-approved" could be removed, although I don't agree it's totally irrelevant. Nonetheless, opposition to so-called "conscience clauses" is part of PP's political agenda, and needs to be mentioned. MastCell 15:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, that most terms in the abortion debate are loaded terms. For instance, the term "emergency contraceptive", referring to drugs that prevent implantation of already-conceived embryos, might be seen as a loaded term by abortion opponents. The term "reproductive health services", used in the introductory paragraph to describe PP's activities (including abortion), is also a loaded term. Should we also put these terms in scare quotes? Miraculouschaos 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Emergency contraception prevents implantation of an already-fertilized embryo? News to me - it actually appears to work by preventing ovulation (see PMID 17241840, PMID 15541405, PMID 11747872, or this summary). But to address the conscience clause issue - pro-choice organizations often refer to them as "refusal clauses"; calling them "conscience clauses" is adapting the pro-life terminology. Rather than get into it, I preferred "so-called". But I don't feel strongly enough to go back and forth about it. MastCell 20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So, using pro-life terminology would violate NPOV, but using pro-choice terminology doesn't? The Wikipedia article about these is titled "Conscience clause", and that is the term with a higher number of results on Google. I won't get into a solo edit war over this, but perhaps some others can offer their view about this. Miraculouschaos 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that; I suggest using both terms, and I like Lyrl's recent edit. But there are enough controversies on Wikipedia; I don't feel that strongly about this one and don't plan on reverting or arguing it any further. MastCell 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources are Mostly from Planned Parenthood Itself

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a newbie to editing Wikipedia. Where's the line between using secondary sources that are independently verifiable and just quoting what an organization says about itself. It seems that most of the basic info about PP is directly from their own website. Some of the other content (about controversy, etc) comes from other sources, but 7 of the 17 footnotes are from PP itself.

Please educate me. Is this a problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew Flusche (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

(sorry, forgot to sign) Andrew Flusche 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's generally OK to use an organization's material as a primary source. Ideally, it's made clear (either in the text or in the reference) that the material is a self-description; obviously, it shouldn't be presented as indisputable fact if there's some controversy involved. On the other hand, as you mention, reliable secondary sources are essential to a Wikipedia article. Fortunately, there is no shortage of them here. The problem arises when an article consists almost entirely of self-description or self-produced primary sources with no reliable, verifiable secondary source material; such a situation raises questions of neutrality, notability, and self-promotion. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification here. I'm definitely trying to learn what's appropriate and what's not. Your reply has helped. Thanks! Andrew Flusche 00:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Defective condoms"

I removed the section heading claiming that PP's condoms were defective. The sources provided were unreliable. Here is the actual Consumer Reports page referenced. I don't see anything about their condoms bursting during testing, and they rated one of PP's condoms "excellent" and two others poor. I'm not sure of the relevance to the PP article, but at least source and present it accurately. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. The original links to the Reuters article and Planned Parenthood response no longer worked, so all I could find was those postings. But I understandw why you don't consider them to be reliable. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the ratings that I am talking about are here. So I have put it back in the article, with this more reliable source. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the same link I gave above. I edited it to reflect what Consumer Reports found, which is that a couple of PP brands rated very poorly while another rated "excellent". MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same link - my error. I like your changes to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What?

From the article's opening:

Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) advocates pro-choice positions, comprehensive sex education, and open expression of sexuality in U.S. politics.

What exactly does that last phrase mean? Is it saying that they hope politicians will tell people whether or not they are homosexual? If so, perhaps that phrase should be removed. I don't think it is what PP is known for. Incidentally, someone did already put a "citation needed" tag on that sentence. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that Planned Parenthood advocates for abortion rights and sex education. I agree, the last item is oddly phrased and should probably be removed. MastCell ^Talk 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. How could it best be rephrased? "Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) advocates pro-choice positions and comprehensive sex education" seems to be lacking. Is there something else we could add to replace the statement about politics? With just two points, the statement seems to suggest that those are PPAF's sole occupations. Or are they? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's that dangling participle at work. Classic grammar mistake. Since they are part of PP, how about, "Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a related organization that actively lobbies the U.S. political system for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and open expression of sexuality." If we need a citation, here's the link http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/issues-action-87.htm Mattnad (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Can we drop "actively"? It's unnecessary, since "actively" is really the only way to lobby. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. Thanks. Now I understand what the problem was. I'll add that source you mentioned also. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I won't. I don't see that exact information there. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. That's why I backed off on the citation when I looked more closely. Mattnad (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)