Talk:Birth control in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aaliyah 15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Studyxinfinity.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 23 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ervalen, Tywinter. Peer reviewers: Zbussey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sanilamath.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bsward. Peer reviewers: Katebalcom, Kyragrace21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A well overdue article
There is a Birth control movement in the United States article but no article on this topic. Birth control movement in the United States is a featured article, which highlights a fault with the Featured Article process. It is ludicrous that the bigger picture is ignored.

I created this article to try and fill the gap. See also Talk:Birth control movement in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I threw it together in a hurry to prove a point (I know - WP:POINTy) and I don't know whether the community is going to stomp on my efforts. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Move to Family Planning in United States
Suggest we move this page to the more general title Family Planning in United States, per the discussion at Talk:Birth control movement in the United States. (That discussion predated the creation of this article.) It could still include material about birth control, but with the broader title it would more naturally cover related material like STDs, safe sex, sex education, desired family size (i.e. why people use birth control), etc. Zodon (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose There is a need for both Birth control in the United States and Family planning in the United States articles. Where would Eugenics in the United States fit in otherwise. You cannot really call it family planning! And we may have to fit Sexual revolution in 1960s America in somewhere. Also, WP is not paper. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly both articles might make sense eventually. However at this point there isn't enough material in this article for one article, let alone two.  It would be fairly difficult to differentiate between two such articles in terms of where new material should be added; especially so if the articles are not already well formed.  Once the article is more fully developed, then it might well warrant splitting.  Without having the article here it is impossible to say whether splitting along the line mentioned above  makes sense, or whether splitting on some other basis makes more sense.  (e.g. splitting out the history coverage, etc.)  Attempting to grow them both in parallel would also slow article development, especially given the small number of editors who recently have shown interest and expertise in this area.  (Better one more developed article that develops faster than several stubs.)
 * Certainly one can cover much of what would be in the family planning article here, but it would be external to the topic (i.e., how it relates to other things), whereas in an article on family planning it would be within the topic. Thus might meet opposition/pruning by editors claiming it is off topic.
 * So even if the ultimate goal is to have two such articles, for now I suggest that starting with the more inclusive topic will facilitate article growth, hastening the day (should it come) when both such articles might exist.
 * Eugenics is mostly a factor in history, and not particularly central to either contraception or family planning. I don't see how it would be any harder to cover in an article on family planning than on birth control.  Eugenicists advocated things like selecting mates and who should reproduce based on some measure(s) of fitness.  Sounds like planning families to me.  Now some of their methods were certainly oppressive of reproductive rights, so it doesn't fit well within modern views on family planning, which tend to emphasize such rights.  But "the past is like a foreign country, they do things differently there."
 * Don't know what problem fitting in the sexual revolution in 1960s America is. Sure, that article is poorly developed, but some think that sexual revolution was sparked partly by newly available methods of contraception.  The revolution included definite changes in views of family, (increased acceptance of unmarried parenthood, decrease in domestic adoptions, etc.), changes in reproductive roles, etc.  Seems pretty easy to tie the topic in to article on either birth control or family planning. Zodon (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note, subsequent to this proposal an editor who opposes the move created the page family planning in the united states. So I guess this proposal now becomes technically a merge proposal. Zodon (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. That was me. I am not opposed to merging some material. I BOLDly and perhaps hastily created Family planning in the United States after splitting it out of the messy Family planning article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Sexual Revolution" Section - Slanted Wording
Various sections sound like they're written to promote pro-contraceptive ideology -- it may be the majority belief, but there are certainly people who find bias. Some obvious examples include: "In 1965 millions of unmarried women in 26 states were still denied birth control." -> "In 1965, 26 states prohibited birth control for unmarried women." "In 1970, Congress finally removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws;" -> "In 1970, Congress removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws;" I will modify those myself.

"On April 6, 1967 he gave a speech to 1,500 students and others at Boston University on abortion and birth control. He gave a female student one condom and a package of contraceptive foam. Baird was arrested and convicted as a felon, facing up to ten years in jail"

This needs some discussion because it seems to be implying the government was engaging in some sort of evil by strict adherence to the law -- for the sake of analogy, "The IRS raided a man's home for one penny in unpaid taxes." -- which is very much amplified by the fact the rest of the section (or at least the first half) has slanted wording. That said, these things are still factual, even if they are nice propaganda rings too.

"The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture." "It contributed to a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women."

I don't know what to say but something just doesn't sit well with me when I read this line. It sounds like some hyped media frenzy article trying to promote a movement with rising success in the US and encourage further reform in the same direction -- not only that, but the source is literally a magazine cover with no mention or reference of the latter claim -- It would be good to have studies, not media coverage, IMO. It would also be preferable prefer if there were a tangible, direct (employment) impact on women instead of an impact to something that leads to employment; it would also be optimal to counteract this line with impacts on childbirth, divorce, and marriage, to be neutral. I suppose Second-Wave Feminism interferes too much, however.

"These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, proved to be another battleground in the war over reproductive rights." -> "These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, became another reproductive rights controversy." This sounds like an advertisement, outright. Will edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs) 07:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Birth control in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405044444/http://www.opaclearinghouse.org/pdf/TitleX-FactSheet_1-21-08.pdf to http://www.opaclearinghouse.org/pdf/TitleX-FactSheet_1-21-08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birth control in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630154543/http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm149568.htm to http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm149568.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209174312/http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2010/ucm222428.htm to http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2010/ucm222428.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Expanding and Adding Detail to Lead
The current lead section is too short and vague. There is no brief description of the article's intentions, or any detail regarding the main sections within the article. These additions should be made for added organization and clarity for the readers. Foxypolymath (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I edited the Lead briefly to have a little description of what birth control is just to start expanding the Lead. Njpactfl (User:Njpactfl\talk) 23:00, 4 March 2020