Talk:Becky Bell/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KenWalker | Talk 05:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is wikipedia lying?
This article is soo biased. That's crazy that you guys thinknshe was lying about the death. Thats what wacky conservapigs say, and wikipedia is promoting it. Labidalove (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've read it carefully and that's just not the case. The article states unequivocally that Becky Bell "was an American woman who died as a result of a back-alley abortion in 1988".  It describes what happened to her and quotes her mother directly, including her description of the harassment she and her husband suffered from anti-abortion campaigners when they spoke to other teenagers about their daughter's death.  It certainly mentions the attempts by certain people to cast doubt on Becky Bell's story, and so it should - those attempts are part of the story too.  Wikipedia just reports things that have already been reported.  It doesn't take sides.   Ka renjc 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

THIS STORY IS SO BIASED
If anyone is interested in the Real Becky Bell Story, please do a google search and read all that is available and make your own opinion. My opinion, as her best friend prior to her death, supports the coroner's report from her autopsy. She did NOT have an illegal/unsterile abortion. She died from complications to pneumonia. Her parents have been used by the women's rights activists in a time when they needed counseling. Please someone re-write this page to AT LEAST include the other half of the story which is highly regarded in the medical community as well as her dearest friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rememberbecky (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I added info from Bell's autopsy report and a quote from New York Times regarding use of Becky Bell as a "poster girl" to balance previously unbalanced article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Title of article
Isn't it more usual to call articles like this "Death of..."? I don't have a strong opinion, but it just seems that that's how it's normally done.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The majority of those articles are about people who have been killed or murdered in some fashion. I'm not sure that this would be appropriate here.-- Auric    talk  21:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Archived version of dead link now removed from article
In case anyone wants to work with the MSFC material that was recently deleted from the article, here's a link to the archived version of the page from around the accessdate given in the citation:. I have no opinion on inclusion or exclusion of the material as of now.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag
Why was a tag regarding unreliable sources added just after multiple reliable sources added? Can the person who added this tag specify which sources are of concern? I did notice some of the older sources are now dead links.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, a number of unreliable sources were just added. As a result, the article is now largely reliant upon unreliable sources such as an op-ed from an anti-abortion advocacy organization, an anti-abortion advocacy website, an anti-abortion advocacy book (and NOW, but that source is dead anyway and doesn't seem to be cited for much article content). Is there actually a real source available anywhere for these supposed claims from the doctors? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a serious misunderstanding about what constitutes a reliable source, and more generally about the way Wikipedia articles are meant to be sourced and written. Here's quick primer: 60 Minutes and news pieces from the New York Times are generally reliable sources. Partisan pro-life websites are generally not reliable sources, nor are opinion written by anti-abortion activists. The latter two may, in some cases, be useable provided they are clearly marked as opinion, but it is completely inappropriate to use partisan websites or opinion pieces as sources for basic facts or to present their claims using Wikipedia's voice. I've likewise removed the citation to the National Organization of Women, and rewritten the article to reflect the content of existing independent, reliable sources such as the New York Times and 60 Minutes - this is a basic requirement for content on this website. MastCell Talk 19:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I did recent edits - the less reliable sources seem to be mostly older sources. The autopsy info comes from:The Baltimore Sun, CBS News-60 Minutes, Cleveland Plain Dealer (as quoted by LifeNews.  LifeNews is a pro-life newsapaer, but they seem reliable enough not blatantly make up quotes from another newspapers. Still, better to have actual Plain Dealer article, so contacting http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/ regarding old archives. The article in question is from 1991 - not online anymore, but archive will be available)


 * The Prolife book was only used for an anti-abortion response to use of Bell's story to repeal parental consent laws. Book seems appropriate source for an anti-abotion response.  The neutral source for the Erica Richardson connection to Bell was Baltimore Sun article.


 * I thought the long NARAL Pro-choice America quote seemed potentially unreliable (and from dead link and non-neutral source) but was hesitant to delete it because quote so interesting and highlights bitter debate over abortion mentioned by reliable source New York Times.


 * Prior to my edits, the only reliable neutral source I saw cited was the New York Times article, the rest of the article was previously based on sources with clear bias toward abortion rights advocacy. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Baltimore Sun piece is an op-ed from an obviously unreliable individual, and if that claim comes from the Plain Dealer, we should be able to find and cite the Plain Dealer article. The suggestion that LifeNews has too much integrity to run false claims is utterly laughable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Baltimore Sun is the largest paper in MD. It's not a biased source. The author of the article may be anti-abortion, but he's not writing for an anti-abortion website. His interview with autopsy doctor is being reported in reliable neutral news source.  I don't get it.  There was (and still is) so much info from abortion rights advocates included in article that's apparently never been questioned, even though it was only reported by abortion rights sources. My only claim about LifeNews is that they don't seem like they'd be reckless enough to make up a quote from thin air and attribute it to a real newspaper. We should be able to get the actual Plain Dealer article though. I'm concerned about bias on this article and NPOV. I do not believe my editing is biased. I'm actually the one who hunted down the 60 Minutes episode and added it as a ref. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Baltimore Sun source is an opinion piece. That should be clear to you from its tone, but in case not, it helpfully notes that its author is employed by "Human Life International, an anti-abortion group in Gaithersburg". Opinion pieces may be useable to demonstrate the views of their authors, with proper attribution, but are totally unsuitable as sources for factual claims and should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. If you're at all unclear on this, please read WP:RSOPINION. The issue is not the size or reliability of the Baltimore Sun, but the proper role of factual vs. opinion pieces. LifeNews is not a reliable source for pretty much anything. It's definitely not a reliable source for factual claims. Again, this should be obvious to you&mdash;we're trying to write a serious, reputable reference work. Do you think such works rely on LifeNews for their facts? But if appeals to your common sense don't work, then again, please read WP:RSOPINION. Finally, your edits grossly violate our policies on neutrality and undue weight. All of the independent, reliable sources make clear that Bell died after a botched illegal abortion. The New York Times describes Bell as "a 17-year-old Indianapolis girl who died in 1988 from a botched abortion because she was afraid to get her parents' consent". 60 Minutes states that Bell "sought out a back-alley abortion instead&mdash;and died from complications". The only sources which dispute her cause of death are partisan, low-quality anti-abortion websites and opinion pieces. It would be bad enough to falsely "balance" these two viewpoints as if they were equally supported by reliable sources, but you've gone way farther, by actually enshrining the dubious, partisan claims as fact. That's poor editing, and it violates essentially every fundamental content policy we've got. I'd encourage you to revert your edits, or at least to reflect on WP:RSOPINION and the need to base our articles on the best-available independent, reliable sources. MastCell Talk 01:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Baltimore Sun would not publish quotes from a supposed interview with doctor who performed Bell’s autopsy, without verifying quotes with doctor. The Sun is a reliable source.  In my opinion, your edits seemed to not represent NPOV.  I’m in the process of getting the Plain Dealer article quoted in LifeNews article, as I agree that would be better as reference.  As I said In reply to your comment on my talk page, I agree that it may be appropriate to add more info from the reliable sources we currently have (and it would be great if we could locate more reliable sources) That was not the reason for my revert. I reverted edit because the edit deleted large amounts of information properly sourced by 60 Minutes, New York Times, and The Baltimore Sun. When we look at all the reliable sources available, I think it's clear there is dispute regarding the circumstances of Bell's death and we should neutrally present that on Wikipedia.  I think it would be best if any deletions of reliably sourced info was explained on talk page first.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating the same things, which are either untrue or irrelevant. I didn't remove the Times and 60 Minutes; in fact, I expanded their use substantially, as anyone can see by counting the references. We agree that these are high-quality sources, so I'm mystified as to why you reverted to your version, which denigrates them in favor of anti-abortion websites and opinion pieces. Secondly, you keep harping on the reliability of the Baltimore Sun. I'm not sure how many times I can say this before it sinks in, but opinion pieces are not suitable sources for factual claims. It doesn't matter if the opinion piece appears in the Baltimore Sun or the New York Times. You can't use them the way you're using them. Common sense should tell you that, but our policies do as well. Show me a reliable source that disputes Bell's cause of death. Not an opinion piece or an anti-abortion screed, but an actual independent, reliable source according to this site's definitions (and not according to your personal ideas about reliability). MastCell Talk 01:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly think someone could submit an "opinion piece" to the Baltimore Sun saying something like "in my opinion, the doc who performed Bell's autopsy said blah, blah, blah." There's no way The Sun would include quotes from that doctor, in such a controversial story, without confirming those quotes. Please review edits. You deleted substantial information form 60 Minutes regarding use of Bell's story by the Feminist Majority Foundation and in ads run by Planned Parenthood. You also deleted quotes from New York Times which referred to Bell as "poster girl" in debate over abortion. You added info from 60 Minutes but stated it as undebated fact that Bell had a "back ally abortion" and that it killed her, despite the debate over this by other reliable sources.  Also, 60 Minutes is my added ref.  Just to be clear, I'm not the biased one.  I hunted down and found that particular ref knowing it would support Bell's parent's account, and feel strongly that account should be included for NPOV. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 60 Minutes states as undebated fact that Bell died after a botched "back-alley abortion". The New York Times states as undebated fact that Bell died after a "botched abortion". So yes, I stated it as an undebated fact, because we're supposed to respect reliable sources and convey their content honestly and accurately. You didn't answer my question: what specific reliable sources dispute these facts? Secondly, WP:RSOPINION states very clearly that opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers (like the Baltimore Sun) "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact". Could you explain why you insist on ignoring this unequivocal policy? MastCell Talk 04:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Asked and answered, but here goes again. I’m not reporting, nor am I particularly interested in that author’s “opinion on abortion,”. I am interested in direct quotes from that author's interview with the doc who performed Bell’s autopsy. Please answer why you think The Baltimore Sun would report direct quotes from such an interview, absent verification. Also, please rewatch the 60 Minutes episode, they do not state the back ally abortion as an undisputed fact, but do certainly present evidence to support it, which I agree we should include. The NY Times article doesn't address the validity of the claim in any manner and does not mention autopsy and is more focused on use of Bell and Jessen as "poster girls". Text regarding Bell's use as a "poster girl" and Planned Parenthood ads was inexplicably deleted, apparently because it doesn't support the abortion rights narrative, despite being reliably sourced.  Prior to my edits, all but one of the refs were from abortion rights advocacy groups, yet unreliable source tag only added when content no longer exclusively supported their narrative (??).  Serious concerns regarding bias on this article.  I will likely wait until I obtain the Plain Dealer article before editing again.  Please review WP:NPOV.  The recent deletions do not address the bias concerns raised earlier on this talk page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Newspapers typically have different standards for editing and fact-checking op-eds as compared to factual news pieces. That's why we treat op-eds differently than factual news pieces. Your personal faith in a particular op-ed does not override our site-wide sourcing guidelines. As to the 60 Minutes and New York Times pieces, I linked and quoted them in my previous post so that you couldn't deny the obvious: they both present Bell's abortion as fact. MastCell Talk 05:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I discovered this page: which cites the CPD article (from ref 258) extensively and quotes from the article. The year given is 1990, not 1991.-- Auric    talk  19:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The page you discovered is from justfacts.com, a website with a self-described "conservative/libertarian" viewpoint run by an individual who published a book which cites "history, archaeology, and physics to genetics, microbiology, and more to compellingly and meticulously demonstrate the truthfulness of the Bible." This is not an independent, reliable source. Look, if you want to cite the Plain Dealer article then you need to actually read it first. You need to actually read the sources you cite. It's not complicated; this is the absolute rock-bottom bare-minimum standard for editing Wikipedia, yet we're repeatedly falling short of it here. MastCell Talk 05:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that they have altered the quotes in the cites in some way?-- Auric    talk  21:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I'm suggesting that highly partisan websites don't make good sources. I'm suggesting that if everyone is hell-bent on citing this Plain Dealer article, then someone needs to actually read the article first. I'm a little frustrated that these basic Wikipedian concepts are being treated as foreign and suspect. MastCell Talk 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper sources
It's been interesting to see the focus on the Plain Dealer article, which no one has been able to track down and which appears to be cited solely in the context of anti-abortion websites. Aside from the obvious problems with citing a source that no one has actually seen or read, it seems to me that the underlying approach to sourcing here is wrong. Good writing (especially on controversial topics) starts with an effort to find the best available sources, and then to follow where they lead. (In contrast, we're currently proceeding by identifying which sources are used by partisan anti-abortion websites and then focusing on getting those sources into the article regardless of whether anyone has actually read them).

In the interest of improving the article's sourcing, I did a quick search using my library's database tool for news articles in mainstream, non-partisan newspapers (aka reliable sources) covering this topic. I avoided opinion pieces, letters to the editor, and other such lower-quality sources and focused solely on news pieces. I came up with the following:

I've read each of these articles (in contrast, despite a concerted effort, I was unable to find the legendary Plain Dealer article). I'm not saying that we need to use all of these sources, but there are quite a few out there, most of which are not incorporated into the article. I've quoted from the articles above because there's currently a dispute over how much weight to attach to contention, by anti-abortion advocates, that Bell did not in fact have an abortion. As I think should be obvious, independent reliable sources are virtually unanimous in stating clearly and unequivocally that she died of complications of an illegal abortion. While the anti-abortion groups' claim to the contrary may be notable enough to mention, we need to respect the undue-weight clause and avoid misleading the reader about its degree of support in actual reliable sources. MastCell Talk 17:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting problem. I checked in NewsBank, which has the Plain Dealer back to 1989.  They list dozens of articles by Frolik, but none with this title, and none from 1990 that mention abortion, although he wrote on the subject in both 1989 and 1991 through the present day.  It's quite a pancake.  It's hard to believe that someone would just make up an article, but somehow this one's not indexed where it should be.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Like you, I find it difficult to believe that the article is a fabrication, but it's odd that it's so elusive. MastCell Talk 18:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) ADDENDUM: One thought: when I looked on NewsBank, I thought it indicated that it only covers the Plain Dealer back to June 1991, which would explain why the 1990 article doesn't turn up. But you mentioned you were able to see articles going back to 1989? It's confusing, not least of all because NewsBank is so clunky. MastCell Talk 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Aha! The two from 1989 were from different papers, so it's possible that the Plain Dealer in NewsBank only goes back to 1991.  That's what I get for not checking carefully, and it would explain a lot:


 * SKINHEADS STARTED OFF RACIALLY TOLERANT - BUT MOVEMENT HEADS INCREASINGLY TOWARD FUTURE FILLED WITH HATE
 * THE SEATTLE TIMES - May 21, 1989
 * Author: JOE FROLIK


 * SKINHEADS SPREAD CLENCH-FISTED FEARS
 * Times-Picayune, The (New Orleans, LA) - May 14, 1989
 * Author: JOE FROLIK Newhouse News Service
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. Too bad; the article is just before the date cut-off for online access. At this point I think that if anyone feels very strongly that this source is essential, then it's up to them to locate a copy. Personally, I don't think it's worth it&mdash;if the excerpts from the justfacts.com site are to be believed, the Plain Dealer article says pretty much what the other (readily available) sources say: the coroner found that Bell died of complications of an illegal abortion, while anti-abortion activists claim she never had an abortion. But I'm willing to discuss the source if someone can credibly claim to have laid eyes upon it. MastCell Talk 20:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual newspaper's site only goes back to 2007: . I think this is going to be a case for microfilm, which is too much trouble for me to deal with.  Like you say, let someone lay hands on it and then we'll talk.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of getting the Plain Dealer article. MastCell, do any of the articles you found above get into the autopsy report? Specifically, additional statements from the doctors actually involved in the autopsy would be good to have.  Seems most articles on Becky Bell don't go past reporting autopsy listed cause of death as septic abortion & pneumonia, but ignoring that abortion, as used on a medical report, does not necessarily mean induced abortion, and that miscarriage would also be listed on a medical report or autopsy as an abortion. The only sources I've seen that get into statements from the actual autopsy drs were 60 Minutes, The Baltimore Sun and Plain Dealer (if the quotes reported elsewhere and attributed to Plain Dealer are accurate).  I actually don't plan on editing again until after obtaining the Plain Dealer article, but did look over current version of this page and I don't really see the relevance of John C. Willke's bizarre statements on rape to Becky Bell.  Seems this has nothing to do with Becky Bell but does belong on the John C Wilike page. Actually, I think what Willke has to say here is pretty much all irrelevant,  because he didn't perform the autopsy on Bell, but since he is quoted on 60 Minutes discussing Bell, I can see argument for including those quotes from 60 Minutes.  But I don't think his bizarre views on rape belong on the Becky Bell page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fact-checking on op-ed pieces
I thought I'd start a new section since the up-page discussion seems to have gone in a different direction. The question being addressed is whether one can expect reputable newspapers to fact-check op-eds. It seems at least for the NYT the answer is no, at least in 1995: I couldn't find anything about the Baltimore sun.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This case is anything but clear
The murkiness of the forensic facts of Becky Bell's death, as opposed to the clarity with which this article attempts to paint them, is striking. This source provides examples of the hedging and contradiction among the doctors who were involved in the autopsy and coroner's report:. Material specifically relating to the Becky Bell case is found on the page from numbers {254} through {321}. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While your personal views are no doubt deeply held, this talkpage isn't really the place to expound upon them. Please try to use the talkpage as intended, to discuss specific reliable sources and content proposals. The partisan website you linked is not a suitable encyclopedic source (I hope we agree on that). I reviewed a number of actual reliable sources above, at #Newspaper sources; as you can see, there appears to be little or no serious dispute in reliable sources that Bell died of complications a botched abortion. It is true that various anti-abortion websites (and editors) have stridently claimed otherwise, but this is after all intended to be a serious encyclopedia rather than a repository for partisan opinion. MastCell Talk 04:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned before at your Talk page, illustrating with examples, I have very little confidence in your ability to be objective on the abortion issue, MastCell. As for the source I directed readers to above, I don't think that it is suitable for direct use in Wikipedia, but not because it is "partisan" (I see little evidence that it is, and partisan sources are not necessarily disqualified as sources for facts in Wikipedia, anyway) but rather because what it presents is tertiary and overly abridged. I did notice, however, that it cites our missing Cleveland Plain Dealer article frequently. Our colleague BoboMeowCat is apparently in the process of getting ahold of that article from the newspaper. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * PS: Thanks for calling my attention to your "reliable sources" listed above, as I hadn't really taken a good look at them before. Let's see: the article from the Charleston [West Virginia] Gazette (pretty well known for its political liberalism, by the way) is headlined "THESE LAWS KILL"; obviously an objective look at the issue. In the Post-Tribune, Rich James describes Becky Bell as a "vivacious blue-eyed blonde when she died of an infection after a self-induced abortion." Other sources lead us to believe it was performed by a third party but apparently this reporter knew differently. I'm not sure what Margaret Carlson's official position at TIME Magazine was in July 1990, but I do know that within a fairly short time after that she was taking a very firm pro-choice stand in her role as a panelist on TV's Capital Gang and writing all sorts of negative things about social conservatives as a TIME comumnist. However, Harriet Chiang, formerly of the San Francisco Chronicle (another bastion of political even-handedness) takes the prize here. Her description of Becky Bell as a girl who "never her gave her parents cause for worry except when she turned cartwheels down the street to raise money for the Humane Society" manages to bridge the gap between partisan exaggeration and outright lying. Momma, what people!! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think that news pieces from TIME, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Times, etc are unreliable, then I think you're profoundly out of step with this site's sourcing policies and guidelines. I suppose if you're serious (as opposed to just angry and emotionally invested), then you could open a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard on the subject. Before doing so, check your facts: the Charleston Gazette piece quotes the Bells as saying "these laws kill", but does not make this claim in its own voice. (The quotation marks in the headline should make clear that it's, you know, a quote). I'm also not sure I buy your contention that West Virginia is a hotbed of liberalism, but you're free to make that case as well. Finally, let me encourage you once again to actually find better sources. I posted the ones I found. You're welcome to add the ones you find. If you took a fraction of the effort you're expending to try to discredit reliable sources, and instead invested it in finding better sources, then we'd be making progress. MastCell Talk 00:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, a liberal newspaper in a generally conservative state is, as we all should know, an impossibility and, of course, the headline writer had no choice but to use the "THESE LAWS KILL" quote as the headline for the piece. Also, I suppose, Becky Bell's drug experimentation and earlier pregnancy scare must have been of far less concern to her parents than were her cartwheels on the street. The San Francisco Chronicle said it. By the way, you're earlier contention that the justfacts.com website is partisan comes from . . . ? Badmintonhist (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From their own website, where they write: "we are conservative/libertarian in our viewpoints", maybe? Or from the fact that the website owner also authored a book purporting to prove that modern archaeology, physics, microbiology, and other sciences support the literal truth of the Bible? Your demeaning commentary about parents of a dead teenager is sufficiently repugnant that I'm not going to dignify it with a response. Regardless, even if one chooses to ignore the Charleston Gazette, the fact remains that independent, reliable sources consistently describe Bell's death as due to complications of a botched abortion. Why you are committed to denying this is unclear to me. MastCell Talk 04:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You can blame the "demeaning commentary" on a newspaper reporter (or columnist) who apparently thought that Becky Bell's drug use and pregnancy scares gave her parents less concern than her cartwheel turning. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's not present speculation as fact
I'm about to delete "but Bell lacked the money and transportation to make the trip" (for a legal abortion in Kentucky) for the second time. As I previously explained in an edit summary, this would-be-fact is speculative. It is taken from the 60 Minutes  report where Morley Safer says "but that" [going to Kentucky for a legal abortion] "would have meant finding money, a car, and an excuse to be gone all day." Here Safer is merely speculating as to why Becky Bell apparently didn't go to a legal clinic in Kentucky. Perhaps, for example, she did find (or have) the money and the transportation, but couldn't come up with what she felt was a good excuse for being gone that long. Perhaps she had all three but then feared that a legal abortion would mean a record of it somewhere and her parents eventually finding out (which presumedly was why she feared the judicial by-pass option). Perhaps, in the end, she simply felt that she could save time, money, and embarassment by choosing another route. The clearest way of realizing what is wrong with presenting "lacked money and transportation" as fact is to replace it with "lacked an excuse to be gone all day." Each is equally speculative. Neither should be presented as fact. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't understand. By your logic, it is equally "speculative" on the part of 60 Minutes to say that Bell experimented with drugs or dated a high-school dropout, yet you seem quite eager to present those particular items as undisputed fact. MastCell Talk 21:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, MastCell. 60 Minutes states flatly that Becky experimented with drugs and began dating a high-school drop out. It doesn't present this particular information as conjecture, probably because her parents and friends corroborated it. I've already explained the problem with presenting the "lacked money and transportation" to get a legal abortion in Kentucky bit as fact. We know from reliable sources that she had used drugs and was dating a "drop-out." We don't know with anywhere near the same certainty what kept her from getting an abortion in Kentucky. One is a matter of fact, the other is conjecture. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 60 Minutes states that money and transportation were barriers to Bell traveling for an abortion, just as 60 Minutes states that Bell experimented with drugs and dated a high-school dropout. You insist on presenting one of those items as "fact" and the other as "speculation". I think that's wrong, but whatever. MastCell Talk 03:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

More Neutral Introduction
The summary at the head of the article includes two sentences which appear to be promoting an ideological interpretation of this tragic death, clearly asserting that "blame" lies on state laws, for example. Since there is plenty of room for these interpretations are dealt with in the details of the events, along with citations, it is better and more "encyclopedic" to cut these two sentences and relate only the uncontroverted facts and interpretation. The shortened intro stating the simple fact that she died from an abortion and that her parents thereafter became critics of parental consent laws is really both accurate not subject to debate and arguments about who is to blame.

I also made a couple more edits to bring the language closer into line with what is actually stated in the 60 minutes interview.

Finally, I'm wondering why there is a section titled "Parental Consent Laws." It's clearly appropriate to mention that the Bells lobbied against them, but to have two sections "Background" and "Parental Consent Laws" put undue weight on laws rather than what this article is presumably really about, Becky Bell.

It's a short enough article that I don't see why multiple subheadings are needed. Perhaps one heading, "Details of her death and the aftermath" might work.

On second thought, if we really want the titles of articles to define the subject of the article, it might be a good idea to split this article into two. One titled "Becky Bell" and the other titled "Bill and Karen Bell" who are notable persons in their own right. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear MastCell,
 * I strongly disagree with your opinion that the lead of this article should include a statement of opinion, that the state laws were the cause of her death. See my comments above.  I see you also reverted clarifications I made regarding the interview with Dr. Willke.  Please identify any inaccuracies in my clarification before reverting.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, because the lead didn't contain any statements of opinion. Before your removal, it read: "Indiana state parental-consent laws prevented Bell from obtaining a legal abortion without her parents' consent." That is a fact, not an opinion, and it's a fact that's central and relevant to making sense of the biography. As such, it belongs in the lead. As you can see, 60 Minutes summarized Bell's story thus:
 * That's a reasonable, neutral, and thorough summary, and I'm unclear why you're repeatedly removing factual details like these&mdash;found in reliable sources&mdash;from the lead of the article. I also think you're being a bit disingenuous about Willke's commentary. 60 Minutes clearly presents Willke's claims in the context of the anti-abortion movement's attempts to attack and discredit Bell's parents (and to discredit and demean Bell herself, posthumously). The interviewer goes so far as to call out Willke's dubious claims, calling him "irresponsible" and "brutal" for attacking a dead teenager using misleading or even made-up claims (for instance, Willke claims support from a physician at the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, and the interviewer points out the falsity of Willke's claim; it's at about 11:46 in the video). I'm concerned that you're using snippets from this source to make an ideological point while ignoring its actual content and context. MastCell Talk 17:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable, neutral, and thorough summary, and I'm unclear why you're repeatedly removing factual details like these&mdash;found in reliable sources&mdash;from the lead of the article. I also think you're being a bit disingenuous about Willke's commentary. 60 Minutes clearly presents Willke's claims in the context of the anti-abortion movement's attempts to attack and discredit Bell's parents (and to discredit and demean Bell herself, posthumously). The interviewer goes so far as to call out Willke's dubious claims, calling him "irresponsible" and "brutal" for attacking a dead teenager using misleading or even made-up claims (for instance, Willke claims support from a physician at the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, and the interviewer points out the falsity of Willke's claim; it's at about 11:46 in the video). I'm concerned that you're using snippets from this source to make an ideological point while ignoring its actual content and context. MastCell Talk 17:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As I believe was noted earlier in the discussion, The 60 Minutes summary in the box above is no good as a source. It had to have been added by ??? long after the original 60 Minutes story on Becky Bell aired which was long before the internet. It is like the blurb on the dust jacket of a reissued book. What is relevant, of course, is the actual content of the 60 Minutes report. And here interviewer Morley Safer does not "point out the falsity of Willke's claim," rather he chides Willke for using anti-abortion doctors in contesting the autopsy result. That's hardly the same thing.
 * Somewhere there should be a copy of an article that appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer back in the early 1990's that called into question the assumptions on which Wikipedia's article is based. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, watch the 60 Minutes piece again. At about 11:46, Safer discusses Willke's claims of support from other physicians. Specifically, Willke had claimed support from Dr. John Curry, a pathologist at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Safer notes that when 60 Minutes tracked down Curry to try to verify Willke's claims, Curry said he'd never seen the autopsy report and was unqualified to make any judgement about the case. (Willke immediately changes the subject). So this is an instance of Willke being caught in an apparently false statement by 60 Minutes. As for the legendary Plain Dealer source, it was discussed at length a few threads above. Another editor stated that she was in the process of obtaining it; that was 7 months ago, so you may want to follow up with her. Given the amount of misinformation that exists on the web (and that editors have tried to write into this Wikipedia article), I would object to citing the article until we can actually verify its content. MastCell Talk 21:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm putting back in Willke's assertion that he and several physicians, including Bernard Nathenson, a very experienced abortion provider, who reviewed the autopsy concluded that it could have been a miscarriage. I think it is noteworthy that the the physician doing the autopsy did not assert in the autopsy itself that there was evidence of an induced abortion, as might be seen by wounds or perforation of the uterus.  The autopsy, rightly, just records the facts, including that the cause of death was from an septic abortion.   The lack of physical of induced abortion means that the cause of the abortion was indeterminate (miscarriage or induced).  I understand, and don't disagree with the coroner stating in the interview that in his opinion it was most likely that the abortion was induced, but that doesn't change or lead him to change the official autopsy report which remains silent on the cause of the abortion.  The opinion of Willke and others that it may have been from miscarriage is not contradicted by any physical evidence in the autopsy, but rather by common sense or estimations of how likely miscarriage would occur rather than abortion.  Since miscarriage is fairly common, and since a girl wishing to conceal her pregnancy might conceal a miscarriage just as she would an induced abortion (legal, illegal, or self induced), it's also not unreasonable to argue that if she had a miscarriage that became infected, she may not have sought treatment in a timely fashion.


 * I'm not arguing about the cause of her abortion. I just think it is appropriate to identify who is claiming what, rather than turning a claim not supported by the physical evidence into an "objective fact."   It is not an objective fact that she had an illegal abortion.  That is a conclusion, supported by a combination of facts, likelihoods, and suspicions.  Statements to the effect that she did die of illegal abortion should be attributed to her parents and others defending that view.   Similarly, the statement of Willke to the contrary is his opinion, one he claims was supported by other physicians.  Even the 60 minute reporters claim that Curry did not support Willke's report of his statements, does not mean that Curry never said anything to Willke about the case . . . it may well mean that Curry (a) thought he was speaking off record to Willke, (b) never studied the issue enough to feel confident enough to give an opinion he was willing to standby by in public, or (c) simply didn't want to be drawn into the public debate and risk of ridicule heaped upon those who disputed the Bell's claims.  Whatever transpired between Willke, Curry, and the reporter is not fully known.  But my point is that Willke's claims did not rely on Curry alone, and it is right and proper to put his claims into the context with which he offered them.


 * MastCell, regarding Safer's comments about Willke, calling him "irresponsible" and "brutal," that alone shows that Safer has a "slant" to his reporting. If you ever took a class on journalism, you would know this is very common . . . to have an angle, a slant, a direction which the story is intended to support.  Other people call this a bias. Safer's opinion that Willke was "irresponsible" and "brutal" does not make that an objective fact.  Similarly, Safer's conclusion that Becky Bell had an induced abortion, much his mind reading presentation that asserts she did so precisely because of the state parental consent laws, is also just his opinion.  That this is opinion is a reasonable conclusion, I grant.  But is it still just a conclusion . . . and most specifically, it is one that found in the autopsy report which was limited to physical facts.  Again, the pathologist, after the fact, offers his best interpretation of the facts stating he is convinced she did have an induced abortion.  But the reason he doesn't include that statement that the abortion was induced in his autopsy report is because there was no physical evidence to support what he believed to be the most likely explanation.


 * Elevating the conclusion that her death was due to an induced abortion goes beyond the facts recorded in the autopsy report. Just because Safer asserts these conclusions to to be facts does not trump the autopsy report and make them "reliable facts."  I'll grant that the 60 minutes report is a reliable source, ie. is worthy of citation, but it is a story with a slant, and one in which Safer is clearly seeking to portray Willke as the bad guy in his story to give it more drama, as your own example of his comments demonstrates.


 * If you like, we can modify the lead to say that "According to Maurey Safer, Becky Bell died from an illegal abortion." That would be accurate.  Or we could attribute that view to her parents or any number of sources.  But that conclusion is not in the autopsy.  Like it or not, Willke has that ground to stand on, and this summary of his statements to 60-minutes should be kept in the context with which he framed his comments. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your proposed edits run directly counter to this site's content policies, and fail to respect or accurately represent reliable sources. I'd go further and say that your use of the 60 Minutes source is dishonest and manipulative&mdash;you're ignoring the actual content and context of the source, and simply mining whichever details serve your editorial agenda. I don't see this discussion going anywhere productive, and in fact you seem less and less willing to respect the sources, so I will probably solicit outside input. MastCell Talk 01:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think outside input would be fine idea. I don't understand how you can say I'm "mining" details from the 60 minutes report.  Isn't everyone who cites it doing so in order to cite something stated in the piece?  It's also unfair to suggest that I am being dishonest and manipulative.  Just listen to what Willke says in the interview.  He's accused of being unfair and he states that he is simply reporting what Mrs. Bell reportedly said.  I don't know if she said those things, but Willke said she did (which is all my edit states) and Safer doesn't dispute that point.  He goes on to say that multiple doctors reviewed the autopsy, including Nathanson and himself.  Safer disputes that Curry agrees with Willke, but doesn't suggest that no doctors agrees with Willke.  I just think the original wording makes it sound like Willke is simply making things up and has no support for his statements.  One doesn't have to agree with him to believe that an article describing his statements should do so in a fashion that properly reflects the context of his statements. It's very proper for this article to describe what the Bell's believe and what those on the other side of parental consent laws believe regarding this unfortunate death.  The agreed upon fact is that she died of complications stemming from septic abortion. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I must say that MastCell's overly general, but generally inhospitable, above comments to GodBless are troubling considering that, if I understand correctly, he/she is an administrator for Wikipedia. @ GodBless I'll try to make my kudos and criticisms brief and specific. I think your changes to the lead are good, more specific and objective; to wit: why should the narrator's voice  present speculation about Becky Bell's mindset as fact? In the other section you edited, however, I see no reason to include the drug use and dating-a-dropout information even if is factually correct. If it can't specifically be linked to the abortion (or miscarriage as some contend) why include it? Lots of teenage girls experiment with drugs and date less than ideal guys.


 * @ both GodBless and MastCell, even though the 60 Minutes presentation is highly sympathetic to Bell's parents and their cause you should keep in mind that it never flat-out says that Becky Bell died from a "back alley" abortion. The "dust jacket blurb" doesn't count. Listen carefully and you'll hear Morley Safer say things like "they (the Bells) say she died of a botched abortion"; "her parents say that in desperation Becky turned to some back alley abortionist"; "afraid, her parents now believe that Becky . . . " As far I as I can hear, he never makes a blanket statement in his own words.


 * @MastCell. Yes you are correct about Dr. John Curry not endorsing Willke's version of the autopsy. I either forgot or overlooked this after first going through the report. There are, of course, all sorts of possible reasons for this other than Willke being a flat-out liar. You said, incidentally, that Willke quickly changed the subject. Perhaps he did as it relates to Dr. Curry, but as it relates to the broader question of those supporting Willke's view of the autopsy, it was Safer who changed the subject. Having caught one mistake in Willke's list he sidesteps Willke's effort to bring up other names and instead begins a criticism of Willke et al as it relates to the Bell saga. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "The dust jacket blurb doesn't count"? Why not? It's the source's own capsule summary of its findings&mdash;we should be according it some deference instead of ignoring it in favor of our own personal interpretations. And numerous other sources support the fact that Bell died of complications of an illegal abortion; I listed a number of them on this very talkpage, a few threads up. Again, the focus here seems to be on a very lawyerly effort to cherry-pick a specific source, rather than a serious effort to convey accurately and honestly the content of reliable sources as a whole. MastCell Talk 18:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I already explained the dust-jacket problem quite nicely. You might reread it. You might also review the 60 Minutes program itself and hear what it actually says for yourself. There is no necessity to deliberately put misinformation into the article. On cover blurbs I remember one of my college professors having great fun with one which completely misstated themes in Dreiser's Sister Carrie. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Curry question, remember that the interview is edited. Perhaps Willke had much more to say about conversations he had with Curry which led him to claim that Curry had supported his viewpoint.  Obviously even that claim occurred in some previous context that Safer is reporting on but to which we are not privy in this 60 minutes interview.  Presumably, a lot of that context got edited out.  So your conclusion that  Willke changed topics presumes that all the footage with Willke was used . . . which is highly unlikely.  Safer and his team were editing the footage to convey what they thought was important, and may also have edited it in ways that favored their slant rather than Willke's slant.


 * It is very unfair of you to suggest that I am cherry picking a source when in fact that source, the 60 minutes piece, is precisely about the dispute surrounding Becky Bell's case and the effort of the Bell's to use this tragedy to change abortion laws. They interviewed Willke as a representative of the viewpoint that the abortion leading to sepsis may have been a natural abortion, a miscarriage.  While Safer's reporting clearly challenges and is skeptical of that viewpoint, and is backed by the pathologist who also believes it is most likely that she had an illegal abortion, there is no physical evidence nor even Safer's personal guarantee that an illegal abortion took place.  The whole tone is that that is the most likely explanation, but as the User above has stated, Safer is a good enough reporter to always attribute the conclusion that she had an illegal abortion to the Bell's and others . . . after all, Safe is just a reporter, not a witness or even a coroner who has personally examined the body for evidence of instruments or chemicals that induced an abortion.


 * I really don't understand why you are going to such lengths to reject reasonable edits of this article which really do just make it more fact based on the very same sources on which you rely. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find the edits in question reasonable. I've tried to explain why at length. I've also added other sources attesting to the facts of the case, since you seem unwilling to accept the 60 Minutes piece. MastCell Talk 04:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Septic Abortion
Since there is a disagreement, let's take it one phrase at a time. Why do you object to changing the link in the lead to septic abortion, which was the official cause of death and an official medical term? I doubt unsafe abortion was even widely used at the time of the Bell case. My impression is that this term has mostly been coined and used in regard to efforts to legalize abortion in developing countries; used to suggest that the problem of illegal abortions is that they are unsafe while legal abortions are automatically safe. So, I really think it's better to stick to the cause of death listed on the death certificate rather than to import the politically charged term "unsafe abortion."

The undisputed fact is that her death was the result of complications due to septic abortion. That is also the only official conclusion in the autopsy, as I understand it. Surely, we can agree to that correction, right? GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "When induced abortion is performed by qualified persons using correct techniques and in sanitary conditions, it is a safe surgical procedure. In the United States, for example, the death rate from induced abortion is 0.6 per 100 000 procedures, making it as safe as an injection of penicillin." (pg. 14).


 * "The global case–fatality rate (220 per 100 000) associated with unsafe abortion is some 350 times higher than the rate associated with legal induced abortions in the USA (0.6 per 100 000 procedures); in sub-Saharan Africa, the rate is more than 800 times higher. Even in developed countries, the case–fatality rate for unsafe abortion is 40 times higher than that for legal induced abortion." (pg. 30).


 * "Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion."


 * "Septic abortions usually result from induced abortions done by untrained practitioners using nonsterile techniques; they are much more common when induced abortion is illegal."


 * Septic abortion doesn't generally just happen (i.e., it is the result of an unsafe abortion). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, septic abortions do often just happen. Please refer to the wikilink for septic abortion which you linked above.  First, it's important to note that "abortion" is the medical term used to describe a natural miscarriage as well as an induced abortion. Second, it's important to note that a natural miscarriage can be incomplete (i.e. the miscarriage begins but not all of the fetal tissue is naturally expelled from the uterus).  When this natural occurrence takes place, the sepsis risk is high. As is detailed on the septic abortion wikipage.  According to the references currently in article, some medical experts believe Becky Bell's septic abortion was the result of this sort of natural miscarriage.  It appears GodBlessYou2's edits are simply trying to neutrally and accurately present the information from RS that it's not a forgone conclusion that Becky Bell had an illegal unsafe back alley abortion, but rather neutrally present the evidence for this possibility (i.e. her parents believe this to be the case and Dr. Pless believes this to be the case).  What's not disputed is she had a septic abortion, which could have been unsafely induced or could have occurred naturally.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire premise of this thread is mistaken. Unsafe abortion is an "official medical term". It is widely used in the medical and public-health literature, and is defined by the World Health Organization as "termination of a pregnancy by people lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both." In other words, it clearly applies here, as numerous reliable sources attest. I don't think you can hide these facts simply by removing all the reliable sources, although obviously you intend to try. MastCell Talk 04:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that "unsafe abortion" is often used in the literature, but why the objection to "septic abortion" which comes from the horse's mouth so to speak? 131.109.225.24 (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My objection has to do with the context; this proposed change seems to be part of a more general effort to hide or erase the well-attested fact that Bell had an illegal and unsafe abortion. MastCell Talk 18:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, you don't respect some of your fellow editors. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more that I don't think some of my fellow editors respect sources, or Wikipedia policies, based on their behavior here and on the article. I'm happy to be proven wrong, though. MastCell Talk 19:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that the autopsy stated "septic abortion." Septic abortion is defined in the [ICD9 here].  Doing a search for "unsafe abortion" in the ICD 9 shows that it is not used in the ICD 9.


 * Even if an editor, MastCell, wishes to declare that "unsafe abortion" is an "official medical term" it was not used in the autopsy, so it should not be used in the lead. I'm changing it to match the autopsy report and the 60 minutes report.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

References with quotes
--As an aside, I just noticed that reference (1) includes a long list of references with quotes from these various references. I've never seen that in a Wikipedia article. It seems strange to pack the references with material that should either be included in the main article or excluded from the citations. I realize that's a new issue. But I think we should look at it and consider what makes sense in regard to general Wikipedia practices regarding the use of references.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference quotations are a huge benefit to editors on contentious topics such as this. Unfortunately editors have been known to misuse sources and quotes make double checking much faster. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the objection here. Are you complaining that there are too many reliable sources? MastCell Talk 04:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My complaint is that a new reference was inserted including multiple references and what may be cherry picked quotes which are embedded in the references rather than in the article. I did not see who inserted these or an explanation of why. It seemed like a underhanded way to load the article (via references) with material that other references have demonstrated to be false or at least indeterminate.  For example, some references assert she had an illegal abortion while others say she self-aborted.  The autopsy, meanwhile, was silent on that issue, as reported in many sources, including the 60 minute piece, because there was no direct evidence of instruments used to cause the abortion (lacerations, or puncturing), which is why some doctors, such as Willke argued that the sepsis may have followed from a natural miscarriage.  Multiplying sources which are not based on original investigative reporting but simply repeat statement from other news sources does not improve the reliability of this article.  At least the 60 minutes piece included original material.  I just got into this because it was clear from watching the 60 minutes piece that what was stated by Safer, and especially by Willke, was being misrepresented in this article.  I just want accuracy. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say the quotes "may be cherry-picked", did you go find the sources and check them out yourself? (I provided full citations so that anyone could verify them). If you have a serious concern, as opposed to just a desire to poison the well, then that would be step 1, right? More generally, I went out and did the work to find a bunch of reliable sources. You (and BoboMeowCat, and the IP editor) don't bother with that sort of busywork. Instead, you sit back and make completely unsupported accusations of cherry-picking (without doing even the most cursory due diligence to support those accusastions); and you suggest that adding reliable sources to the article is somehow an "underhanded" activity, when it is in fact the fundamental way that neutral encyclopedia articles are written. I don't know how much more clearly I can say this: you have a very misguided idea of how Wikipedia works. You keep repeating that you want a neutral article. If so, then you need to understand that neutral articles start with finding good, reliable sources. The disappointing and frustrating thing here is that your behavior (and that of BoboMeowCat and the IP editor) doesn't bear out your ostensible desire for a neutral article. Quite the opposite: you, as a group, have done nothing to find or improve sourcing, and have actively obstructed those efforts by stonewalling here on the talk page and by wholesale deletion of reliable sources from the article. Those behaviors actively impede the development of a more neutral article. MastCell Talk 21:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Plain Dealer article exists
The referenced Plain Dealer article is now available online at Newsbank although payment is required to view the article itself. The article in question appears on page 1-A and continues under the heading "Abortion" on page 14-A (page 13 in the plain numbered list of all pages).

There are several quotes from Pless in the article, including the oft-cited one. However, that particular quote does not accurately reflect the entirety of Pless' statements in the article. Here is the relevant section, in the sixth (final) column on page 14-A:

There is a previous section describing Bell's death and Pless' findings at the bottom of the second column and continuing up to the top of the third column, again on page A14:

Taken altogether, it's clear to me that Pless definitely thought that she had died from a botched abortion and based that conclusion on what he knew, but that he could not definitively say that this was the cause of death because the usual evidence wasn't there. The oft-quoted statement of his appears to be cherry-picked from the article in order to misrepresent his view.

I have saved the article as two PDFs but am uncomfortable making them available to everyone because the Terms of Use specify that access to the article is for personal use only. Here's the full citation for the article:

I hope this helps. Ca2james (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Careful there, Ca2james, editors here are subject to discretionary sanctions. All kidding aside, thank-you. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much; that is very helpful, and I appreciate the time (and money) that you spent identifying and tracking down sources. This talkpage needs more of that. MastCell Talk 18:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is helpful, indeed. I don't see what Ca2james means by "The oft-quoted statement of his appears to be cherry-picked from the article in order to misrepresent his view."  Isn't it very clear from the article?  Pless believes an illegal abortion is the most likely cause of the miscarriage, but he cannot rule out a self abortion or a miscarriage (theories advanced by others cited in the article).  That's a very easy distinction to make in our article, and it is one I attempted to make in regard to the 60 minutes piece.


 * Can you tell us more about what Heather Clark told the reporter? Thanks. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , when I said, "The oft-quoted statement of his appears to be cherry-picked from the article in order to misrepresent his view" I was referring to the fact that the statement "I cannot prove she had an illegal abortion. I cannot prove she had anything but a spontaneous abortion" is used in some sources (like this one) to imply that Pless supports the view that Bell did not have an abortion. I may have read that page incorrectly and misinterpreted the way the quote was being used there, of course.


 * Here are the paragraphs that contain Heather Clark's statements or that refer to her, in addition to the mention quoted above.
 * Page A-14; bottom of first column and continuing on the second column:
 * "Her parents always expected her to be Little Miss Perfect — Becky's teenage rebellion was almost as All-American as her early years. A boyfriend her parents, brother and friends disliked. Drugs — including, Clark said, marijuana, speed and LSD. A pregnancy scare.


 * In February 1988, Becky came to her parents and said that she had a drug problem. They put her in a residential program. Everyone agrees that when Becky emerged she seemed changed, more like her old self. At a family pow-wow, Bill Bell says that in a raised, firm voice, he told Becky, "We don't want to go through that again."


 * To Becky, that sounded like an ultimatum: mess up again and you're out of the house. Clark thinks her best friend was wrong — "They're good people. They'd have stuck by her" — but that perception apparently shaped what happened next.


 * Becky went back to her old boyfriend long enough to get pregnant — and dumped. With Clark in tow, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic where a counselor listed her options. She was told an Indiana minor has to get a parent's written consent for an abortion. Most minors, she was told, simply go out of state. Louisville is less than 100 miles away.


 * Planned Parenthood records indicate Becky never returned for more counseling. Clark says she urged Becky to tell her parents, but she felt she had to handle it herself. Only she was torn about what to do.


 * For a time, Clark says, she was going to have an abortion. Then she was going to have the baby and put it up for adoption. Or run away to California. "She was just really confused," Clark said.


 * At the start of the third week of her junior year at Cardinal Ritter High School, Becky told her family she felt sick. Probably dad's flu bug. On Tuesday, she fainted at work. She stayed home the next two days, resisting her parents' pleas that she go to the doctor. Thursday night, Clark stopped by to visit. She says Becky asked her to schedule an abortion in Louisville for Saturday.


 * Page A-14; near the top of the third column:
 * And so during the sermon of Becky's funeral at Bethel United Methodist Church, the bomb dropped. A gasp rippled through the church, followed by shrieks and tears. Old friend Cara Keppler keeled over. Heather Clark fought back anger — she didn't believe then her friend had an abortion and still doesn't.
 * Ca2james (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Very interesting, and helpful.  It is nice to see some original reporting on this story.  Her friend's account is the closest thing we have to what was going on in Becky's mind.  Though "She was just really confused," makes clear that even that peek into her mind is very sketchy.  I think we should add a summary of Clark's comments to the article.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations . ..
are in order to Artifex Mayhem for using the recently "vouched for" Joe Frolik piece from the Cleveland Plain Dealer in our article. I did notice, however, that his choice of information to confirm was, shall we say, "curiously selective." 131.109.225.24 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I just now saw Artifex's quote in the reference to the Plain Dealer article, regarding Dr. Nicholas' opinion. Where did that come from? It's not found in the material that Ca2james has transcribed for us.  Does Artifex have a copy of the article?  If so, why didn't he share all these details as Ca2james did, before now??! GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Because Artifex Mayhem doesn't do anything that might help "the other side" in the abortion debate. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Heather Clark's Statements to Press
I've made a first crack at including Heather Clark's account of events and her opinion regarding the cause of the septic abortion. If any editors have suggestions about how to better handled it, please comment in this section.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't spend too much time on Heather Clark's account but if you do then use Frolik/Plain Dealer as a your source. More important is to introduce the possibility of a spontaneous abortion in the article's lead which is now confirmed by a reliable source. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC) I just added to the spontaneous abortion possibility to the lead. I'll leave it to you or one of our other colleagues better at the technicalities of adding references to articles to provide the source. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I really don't like how what is currently Ref 3 includes not one, but 8 citations. These should be broken up into 8 separate cites.  Preferably, they should then be reduced, if redundant, and spread out across the three possible causes of death.  For example, the Post-Tribune quote is the one most emphatically for self-abortion, and should be placed following that phrase in the sentance.


 * The Plain Dealer article describes all three possible causes of the abortion. So it could suffice for the entire reference.  But I think MastCell would prefer to include some of his other sources.  So I hope, and invite, him to split these up into separate citations and sprinkle them about as he thinks best.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I had hoped MastCell, who added the reference including multiple references would split them up and remove those that add no new information. Since that's not been done yet, I removed the multi-reference from the lead since it doesn't add any new information.  I did split out the James reference, which definitively asserted her death was due to self-abortion, and put it into the body of the article.-GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. We need to represent reliable sources accurately and proportionately; this is codified in WP:WEIGHT. In order to do that, we need to assess all of the available high-quality sources and come to some agreement about how they stack up. It is not a question of adding "new" information, but rather of assessing the prominence of various wordings in available reliable sources. We don't just pick our favorite source and ignore all the others. The reference demonstrates that many, if not most, reliable sources make clear that Bell died of complications of an illegal abortion. Our wording needs to follow from that. There is no requirement that the sources be split into separate footnotes; as a stylistic matter, a single footnote looks "cleaner" and conveys the same information, as described in our site guidelines here. MastCell Talk 23:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It don't think it's a matter of picking favorite source and ignoring the rest but rather paying particular attention to the sources that discuss the autopsy report beyond reporting it read "septic abortion".  The 60 Minutes and Cleveland Plain Dealer references seem particularly valuable in this regard because they interview the doctor who performed the autopsy. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not all reporters cover the issue with equal depth. Some add nothing to the material, and may even be simply reporting what other reporters have reported. Taking a count of the number of sources that repeat what was presented by the Bells at a press conference does not determine weight.   The evidence from all the sources in aggregate is clear.  The pathologist and coroner both believed an illegal abortion was the most likely explanation for the abortion but also admit that spontaneous abortion cannot be ruled out by the medical evidence (ie. no signs of instrumentation or substances in the uterus). The alternative explanation of the facts, made by pro-lifers like Willke and Nathenson, was widely reported.  Policy states: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." As with all such articles, this is a synthesis of many available reliable sources.  Loading up a single citation with 9 references all repeating one view of the narrative is both ugly and absurd.  It's like picking a dozen reports of the Fergusson incident citing that Brown had his hands raised in surrender and pretending that resolves the issue, when it is clear that the whole reason it's a national story is because of dispute over interpretation of the facts.  The Bell case was of national interest precisely because it raised issues of dispute, which is precisely whey 60 minutes interviewed Willke.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for lead
I think the lead could be improved by specifying who believed what instead of just listing possibilities as it does now. Bell's parents, the doctor who performed the autopsy, and her best friend provide first hand knowledge. The anti-abortion advocates are relevant, but only due to the case being part of the abortion debate. I think specifying who believed what helps reader sort it out.

I was thinking something like this:

Becky Bell was an American teenage girl who died of complications from a septic abortion. At the time, Indiana state law prevented minors from obtaining a legal abortion without parental consent. Bell’s parents believe she did not seek consent because she didn’t want to tell them she was pregnant, due to fear of disappointing them, resulting in her turning to an illegal unsafe abortion. Blaming the parental consent law for her death, Bell’s parents became influential advocates in opposition to parental consent laws nationwide. Anti-abortion advocates have said that Bell did not have an induced abortion, but rather a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). This belief is supported by Bell’s best friend. The forensic pathologist who performed Bell’s autopsy said that while he cannot rule out natural miscarriage, he believes Bell died as the result of an unsterile induced abortion. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This suggestion places undue weight on the inexpert opinion of Becky's friend. We don't even know what made her say that she did not believe there was an induced abortion. Did the friend see evidence of Becky having pneumonia before she went out one night, telling her parents that she was going to a party? The parents didn't see any such thing. Did the friend think Becky just wouldn't do it? They both went to PP for that purpose. The friend's account holds very little weight. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer (exerts above from Ca2James), Heather Clark believed Becky Bell had a natural miscarriage because Bell asked her to schedule an appointment for her to have a legal abortion in Kentucky, but her illness worsened and she died before that occurred. Heather Clark was also apparently Bell's confidant throughout the entire ordeal and accompanied her to planned parenthood where she was turned away due to lack of parental consent --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Cleveland source is not as reliable as scholarly accounts which by far discuss this case as an induced abortion, with little or no importance assigned to the friend's story. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the first paragraph proposed by BoboMeoCat is fine. I see no need for the second in the lead.  That is adequately covered in the body of the text.  I previously suggested, and still believe the following is adequate for the lead:
 * Rebecca "Becky" Suzanne Bell (August 24, 1971 – September 16, 1988) was an American teenage girl who died of complications from a septic abortion.[1][2] Following Bell's death, her parents became advocates for the repeal of parental-consent laws which they blamed for her death.
 * That's factual and indisputable, and invites the reader to learn more about why the parents blamed the parental consent laws in the body of the article. Given that this is a relatively short article, it is also appropriate to keep the lead much shorter than any of the individual sections. The lead is not the place to attempt to summarize disputed interpretations of the facts.-GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Binksternet. What scholarly accounts, there Doctor? These are all pretty much newspaper accounts that refer to the same official report and the same set of doctors {there apparently were at least three involved in the official report, and one of them, Dr. Jesse Giles, apparently, thought it was a spontaneous abortion). Of the newspaper accounts we use it seems that the Frolik/Plain Dealer piece goes into the most depth about the possible causes of the abortion and death. No, for Wiki to say that the official report ruled that an induced abortion was the most likely cause is justifiable is okay, but we shouldn't be making the case in our own narrative voice. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A note to GodBlessYou2: Take a look at WP:LEAD where the guideline directs us to summarize the article in the first few paragraphs. Your position is not supported. In fact, the lead is precisely the place to summarize the topic, disputes and all.
 * Responding to the IP editor contributing from Providence, Rhode Island: You and I must be looking at different sources. I went to Google Scholar and Google Books to make my searches, with the intention of finding the highest quality sources. Here are some of the searches I made: The results are scholarly articles in law review journals, sociology journals, public policy journals, and so on. One of the sources is by Selina K. Hewitt, the editor-in-chief of Pepperdine Law Review, who discusses the case in detail in her scholarly paper "Hodgson v. Minnesota: Chipping away at Roe v. Wade in the Aftermath of Webster", published in 1991. She describes how Becky's parents talked to all of Becky friends (not just Heather) and pieced together the facts of her pregnancy. Hewitt says that the Becky would not tell her parents what caused her illness, not even on her death bed, but that she apologized for a sin she would not specify. The attending doctor said she had blood poisoning from a dirty surgical instrument that had been inserted in her vagina. Hewitt, like a great many other scholarly writers, concludes that Becky sought an illegal abortion. This paper by Hewitt is widely cited. Another law paper by Matthew Hayhurst on the topic of parental notification appeared in 1997 in Montana Law Review (pages 585–6), giving as an example Becky Bell's death by "botched abortion" which caused a "massive septic infection", citing (you'll like this local angle) an investigative news piece carried in the Providence Journal, written by veteran reporter Mark Patinkin, with the title "Abortion Would Have Hurt Mom and Dad". Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe discusses Becky's case in his book Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, on page 202. He quotes Becky's "best friend" (without naming her) but he does not give any credence to the idea that Becky had a spontaneous miscarriage. Instead, Tribe concludes that is "unclear" how she terminated her pregnancy, but that the likeliest explanation is that she got an illegal abortion, this conclusion stemming from the medical evidence that she began to suffer "pneumonia caused by an infection in her uterus."
 * I could go on and on in this vein, bringing more and more very reliable sources to the table, but I don't see the need. The counter proposal that we are discussing is based on one article in a city paper, based on one inexpert opinion, that of Heather. By far most of the impartial observers have concluded that the parents are a better source than one of Becky's friends. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that giving Heather Clark's opinion that Bell did not have an abortion the same relative prominence as an illegal abortion being the cause of death is WP:UNDUE. Clark's opinion is reliably sourced in the newspaper article but journal and scholarly article are stronger sources. Since the opinions and conclusions in all of those articles are the same (that she had an illegal abortion), those opinions and conclusions get the most weight. The second paragraph of 's lead suggestion is WP:UNDUE for the same reason. Ca2james (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Clark's opinion is not an isolated one. It is situational evidence and personal testimony regrading Bell's state of mind that concurs with the medical opinions of Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Dr. Willke, and other physicians who reviewed the autopsy report and --- noting that there was a lack of any damage to the uterus or infection of the uterus --- that it was unlikely that the abortion was induced.  So there are clearly medical experts who agree with Clark's opinion.  Furthermore, neither Clark's opinion nor those of the physicians who are skeptical of the induced abortion theory, are contradicted by the expert opinion of the coroner and pathologist have both stated, when you look at all of their statements in context.
 * In short, while the coroner and pathologist both stated that they believe an induced abortion was the most likely cause, they also stated . . . as scientists and experienced expert witnesses what they would have been compelled to say in testimony . . . that they could not rule out miscarriage. Evidence of fetal matter and infection was in the genital tract . . . not in the tissue of the uterus, and there were no lacerations  . . . . much less six-day-old infected wounds, for example, which would have been clear physical evidence of an attempted induced abortion.  While they could tell reporters that they thought it most likely the cause of death was induced abortion, if they had been cross examined in court, they clearly would have admitted they didn't know the cause of the abortion.  All they knew is that she had been pregnant and was not pregnant at the time of death, but there were signs of fetal material and infection in the genital tract.
 * All that said, I don't think Clark's testimony should be part of the lead. It's sufficient to state that there was dispute over interpreting the autopsy report.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Willke & Curry
I added a new source describing the counter-lobbying effort of the pro-life movement. I happened to see a reference to Dr. Curry, whose opinion, Safer suggested in the 60 Minutes interview, had been misrepresented by Willke. This source indicates that Curry had made statements to columnist Cal Thomas ( C Thomas, "A Rush to Blame in Becky Bell's Death," Washington Times, August 9,1990.) Maybe Willke spoke to Curry, too. But I think it more likely that Willke was guilty of citing the Cal Thomas article as his reason for claiming Curry's support for his position.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The National Right To Life Committee is (obviously) a partisan and highly biased source, and we should not be basing encyclopedic coverage on it (for the same reason that you don't see Planned Parenthood's website, or NARAL's, cited in the article). Likewise, the "Bernadell Technical Bulletin" doesn't seem to meet this site's bar for appropriate sourcing. The anti-abortion response is already well-documented in high-quality reliable sources, so I don't see any reason to lower the bar here. While it is interesting to speculate about the path by which Willke arrived at his misrepresentation, I'm not sure it's relevant to the article, since it's editorial conjecture. MastCell Talk 17:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not citing the NRLC or Nathanson articles as sources for the background information, but rather as sources describing the counter-lobbying efforts of pro-life sources. In that context, they are very appropriate citations. Remember, the 60 minutes piece is being cited regarding the assertion that pro-life groups responded to the Bells by attacks on the Bells, so it is very relevant to cite sources showing how they counter-attacked.  Both are reliable sources in regard to how pro-lifers were responding to the Bell's claims. My statement regarding Curry's interview with Cal Thomas was for the editors, specifically you, since you asserted Willke had lied to Safer.  I just wanted to point out that it is more likely Willke simply relied on the Cal Thomas article in whatever context he had previously claimed Curry's support for the miscarriage explanation.-GodBlessYou2 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, 60 Minutes and the National Right To Life Committee are not equally useful sources. Using 60 Minutes as a source does not obligate us to cite the NRLC, just as it doesn't obligate us to cite Planned Parenthood or NARAL to describe the pro-choice response. The anti-abortion response is well-documented in independent, reliable sources and I oppose lowering our bar to use low-quality partisan sources. As far as Willke, if he is (as you believe) basing his claim of medical support on an unverified assertion that he read in a right-wing op-ed, then I'm not sure that's any better than just making it up, but to each his or her own. MastCell Talk 19:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)