Talk:Mexico City policy

Plans to edit article
Hi! I am a student editor and I am considering this article as the one I will edit and expand this semester for my class. I see a lot of potential to add more up-to-date information, especially in the "impact" section with regards to recent changes to this policy in the administration. For more information please see my user page! Nicolekoonce (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Point of View?
The article states initially: "Called the "global gag rule" by opponents" and then throughout the article it's referred to as the "gag rule". So clearly either the term "gag rule" is used by more than just the opponents OR there's a neutral point of view issue with this article.


 * I fixed that. It took about ten seconds. Dlabtot 01:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Innaccuracy?
The article said "Other reproductive health organizations including the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia, the Family Planning Association of Kenya and the Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia likewise refused changes to match American policies, with even greater funding cuts as a result." I removed Kenya from the list since globalgagrule.org said "that [in 1984]] FPAK then turns to USAID/Kenya for direct assistance and reluctantly agrees to the terms of the gag rule." Other things should probably be checked.--Bkwillwm 17:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I don't know where to begin. The article focuses soley on opponents of the policy and uses their terminology. Revolutionaryluddite 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One way to begin would be the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Dlabtot 01:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've done a pretty good rewrite. Kudos. Do you still think the article needs a POV tag? Dlabtot 02:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not really. I'll take it off. Revolutionaryluddite 02:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And the Refimprove tag? I don't know who placed it. Right now the article lists 24 sources ( I think there might be some dupes, tho) and doesnt have any s.  Dlabtot 03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are still three or four sentences without sources, but the article is well-sourced overall. I'll remove the tag.


 * Could you fix the dupes? I don't know how. Revolutionaryluddite 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

covenantnews.com
Is this a WP:reliable source? It doesn't appear to be. Dlabtot 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that it can only be used as a source for a sentence like "Pro-lifers have argued that (...)" or something like that. Revolutionaryluddite 02:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:reliable sources states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dlabtot 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now, the assertions by both critics and supporters of the policy are only sourced to first-party websites. It's my understanding that WP policy on Op-Eds, activist magazines, interest group periodicals, and so on says they can function as reliable sources under the limited condition that the article uses X's website for "X argues Y" and not for "Y is true" with X's website as a source. I may be wrong about this, I don't know. Revolutionaryluddite 03:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Boston Legal paragraph
I think that the paragraph should be removed in its entirety. It's a purely fictional and non-realistic show that has very little relevance in an article about a real-life policy. Revolutionaryluddite 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The entry is relevant to informing the reader of the notability of the policy as well as to the controversies surrounding the policy. Dlabtot 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the paragraph. The notability and importance of the policy is already stated in the aricle. The Boston Legal reference does not involve actual facts. In the same vein, should the main article on the Eiffel Tower mention that the Americans blew it up? Revolutionaryluddite 03:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I knew that you removed that paragraph before I made that previous comment. I disagree with your removal of that paragraph for the reasons that I already stated. Rather than just revert, I figured I'd just make it clear that no consensus has been reached in this matter. Dlabtot 03:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that strongly about it. I would be okay with a one-sentence snippet on the episode. Revolutionaryluddite 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NGOs
''This policy forced NGOs to quickly decide whether to forego often substantial funding from USAID or change their operations. The London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) refused to change their stance and lost more than 20% of its funding. Other reproductive health organizations including the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia and the Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia likewise refused changes to match U.S. policies, with even greater funding cuts as a result.[citation needed] Romanian and Colombian NGOs were among those that relented, deciding they could not give up US aid.''

"Quickly decide"? What rushed them? Also, the policy did not "force" anything; it stipulated that US taxpayer dollars would not be used to perform or promote abortions. Usage of the terms "refused" and "relented" is very POV. Also, what did these NGOs do that makes them far more notable than the other health agencies that accepted the policy? The blanket term "reproductive health organizations" is confusing. Did these groups routinely perform elective abortions? If so, then the fact that the policy cut off their funding is not notable-- that's what the policy intended to do. I think that the entire paragraph should be removed. Revolutionaryluddite 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it. Revolutionaryluddite 03:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The section has be readded, again, without sourcing and with slanted wording. Revolutionaryluddite 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of text
I'll make a deal with you, RL: I'll try to find the references to the text you want to delete in the next few days. If I can't find it, we'll delete those sentences. --IronAngelAlice 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. If there are sources for the information, than I agree that it should be left in. But the slanted phrasing and wording of the paragraph must be changed to restore NPOV on this article. Revolutionaryluddite 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I discovered this aricle. I see that the paragraph was blatantly plagiarized from that article. I added the referance to the reworded paragraph. The article is an editorial (or reads like one) and is not a reliable, third-party source. Still though, I'm inclinded to leave the NPOV, non-plagiarized paragraph in for now. Revolutionaryluddite 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The biased, anti-policy wording has been readded to the article; I removed it. Revolutionaryluddite 04:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It must be noted that these health organizations are explictly pro-choice; they did not agree to the policy because they wanted to continue promoting or performing abortions. Revolutionaryluddite 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "After the policy's institution, several international health agencies decided to forego U.S. government funding rather than change their operations."
 * This sentence, on its own, is equally problematic. Using terminology such as "decided" and "rather than change their operations," it places the burden of non-compliance with the Mexico City Policy solely at the feet of the international health organizations, while failing to take into account that, in enacting the policy, the U.S. government could be seen as having presented these groups with an ultimatum (comply or be denied funding). The current wording thus takes it as granted that the Mexico City Policy was fair, and that the organizations were simply refusing to obey the law, and doesn't acknowledge that, from the perspective of these organizations, the policy, as an ultimatum, didn't given them any real options.
 * "The Mexico City policy forced NGOs to quickly decide whether to forego often substantial funding from USAID or change their operations."
 * On the other hand, this sentence is also problematic, because the word "forced" is accusatory in tone and serves to shift the responsibility for the non-compliance of the NGOs with the Mexico City Policy right back to the U.S. government. This wording takes it as granted that the policy was unfair and implies that the only realistic move for effected NGOs was to refuse to comply.
 * I think the solution would be to marry the two sentences in a manner that avoids finger-pointing in either direction. -Severa 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to rewrite the section in order to address some of the concerns that have arisen. I hope that my revision avoids some of the pitfalls associated with language such as "decided" and "forced." Also, thank you for catching the reference to "Republican Congressman Chris Smith," Revolutionaryluddite, which I missed because it was tucked away in a tag. I'm not sure whether it is customary to refer to U.S. Senators and members of Congress by their party affiliations, but, in the context of this article it strikes me as unnecessary. If I'm wrong, though, and it is customary, then making such a referrence to a politician in this article should not be an issue. -Severa 03:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After the Mexico City Policy's institution, organizations were required to meet its specified conditions in order to be eligble for federal funding from the United States, and, as a result, several international health agencies no longer received a portion of their funds from this source. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which is based in London, England, did not alter its operation and lost more than 20% of its total funding. Other family planning organizations, such as the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia and the Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia, likewise did not make the changes required by the Mexico City Policy and had their funding cut. NGOs in Romania and Colombia brought their activities in line with the new U.S. guidelines and continued to qualify for federal funding. The section seems to have a lot of unecessary words; it says "International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which is based in London, England," instead of "the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)". Overall though, I agree that the section is now NPOV except for the phrase "brought their activities in line", which seems somewhat anti-policy. Revolutionaryluddite 03:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a London, Ontario which has a population of over 300,000, and, as a Canadian, I suppose it is only natural for me to disambiguate references to an unspecific "London." I understand the concern about wordiness, but, when we're dealing with a subject such as abortion, sometimes we have to forego simplicity in favour of neutrality (this is why I opted for the phrasing "funding conditions" rather than "restrictions"). Any suggestions for an alternative wording to "brought their activities in line?" I went ahead and tried "adapted to the new U.S. guidelines." -Severa 03:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but when most English speaking people think "London" they think "London, England". I don't think it should lead to a disambiguation page anymore than Pink should because of Alicia Moore.
 * Kudos, the section seems neutral now. Revolutionaryluddite 03:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you're an active project member, can you rate this article for 'importance'? Revolutionaryluddite 03:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Do we need to refer to the city in which IPPF is based at all? I suppose we could trim down the length of the section a little by removing this info. Also, the WikiProject Abortion banner does not have an "importance" function, although I've been considering adding one for some time. I added the WikiProject Law banner instead and rated the article "Mid." -Severa 04:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the info is unecessary. I think the project banner should have an 'importance' function, but I'm not a member so I don't really feel strongly about it. Revolutionaryluddite 04:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization
I have moved some of the information on the background of the Mexico City Policy that was formerly located in the introduction to the "History of the policy" section, where I believe it is a better fit, in order to improve the cohesion and flow of the article. I have also created a "Scope of the policy" section in which the policy's effect can be described in greater detail. The policy is active, I believe, so I edited this description to be in present tense.-Severa 07:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The current revision looks better. The only problem I see is that a source is still needed to confirm Alan Keyes' involvement in drafting the policy. Revolutionaryluddite 17:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that the sentence about Keyes was uncited. I did a bit of searching and the only source I could find which made reference to Keyes' involvement in creating the Mexico City Policy was this interview. However, it's published on the Renew America web site that is Keyes' homepage, so an independent confirmation would be helpful. I'll add an uncited tag for the time being. -Severa ( !!! ) 23:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The League of Conservation Voters, no friend of Keyes in any sense, has stated that "During the Reagan administration, Keyes was a U.S.delegate to the 1984 World Population Conference in Mexico City." Revolutionaryluddite 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This confirms half of the information, that Keyes was a U.S. delegate, but not the part about him having negotiated the language of the policy. I've searched but I haven't been able to find any other references to Keyes' involvement. I think the tag should simply stay in place for now. -Severa ( !!! ) 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
I am a little bit confused by the intended meaning of the first sentence in the following quote, and, because it appears that two sentences have been garbled into one, I have been unable to produce a modified version which I feel is faithful to the meaning that the original author was trying to convey.
 * "Opponents of the Mexico City Policy refer to it as the 'global gag rule', and argue that it keeps U.S. foreign aid from helping non-governmental organizations from distributing USAID-donated condoms and birth control [out-of-place bit bolded]. This has resulted in an increase in unwanted pregnancies, and thus an increase in the rate of abortion."

This is what I interpret the sentence as meaning. I would appreciate it if other editors would let me know if they believe my intepretation is correct.
 * "Opponents of the Mexico City Policy refer to it as the 'global gag rule', arguing that it has kept U.S. foreign aid from helping non-governmental organizations, and prevented these NGOs from distributing condoms and other forms of contraception donated by USAID. This, critics say, has resulted in an increase in unwanted pregnancies, and thus an increase in the rate of abortion."

-Severa ( !!! ) 08:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the sentence, but I think the original intent was something like "Opponents of the Mexico City Policy refer to it as the 'global gag rule', arguing that it has kept USAID from helping non-governmental organizations with their distribution of condoms and other forms of contraception". Revolutionaryluddite 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at one of the pro-choice references, the section as it reads now is not supported by the reference. The Mexico City Policy does not directly prevent funds from going to groups that hand out birth control. However, the health organizations that disagree with the policy happen to be some of the critical suppliers of birth control in third-world nations. So, indirectly, the policy has lead to a decrease in birth control distribution. Their entire line of arguement seems like a classic red herring to me, but it's one of their main points. Anyways, I think my rewrite (above) makes more sense. Revolutionaryluddite 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I found a source critical of the Mexico City Policy which suggested that, in addition to providing funding, the USAID program also donates birth control supplies to NGOs, and thus becoming ineligible would mean the loss of these donations in addition to the discontinuation of funding. There is now a souce and I've modified the section to reflect what it says. I hope this improves clarity further. -Severa ( !!! ) 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems clearer now. This, it is suggested, negatively impacts the ability of these NGOs to distribute birth control, leading to a downfall in contraceptive use and thus an increase in unintended pregnancies and abortion. This sentence, though, seems somewhat biased. It should say something like "Opponents then argue that the ability of the NGOs to distribute birth control is negatively affected and leads to a downfall in contraceptive use, an increase in unintended pregnancies, and an increase in abortion rates." Revolutionaryluddite 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited the sentence to make it clearer that the ones making this assertation were the critics. On the other hand, the cited source provides a clear order to the cause-and-effect relationship it proposes, which is that A (withdrawal of donation of contraceptive items) leads to B (downfall in contraceptive use) leads to C (more unintended pregnancies) leads to D (increase in abortion rate). This is why I structured the sentence with a division between B and C/D ("and thus," now "from there," to hopefully remove the suggestion of conclusivity "thus" can have). I don't think that listing the effects as simply "leads to B, C, and D" would really take into account the order of the argument that's being made. I deliberately tried to mirror the structure of the "They argue that a stipulation in the policy means..." sentence. -Severa ( !!! ) 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

US Policy verses UN policy
UNFPA has stated that "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning". It's also stated that "Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority and every attempt should be made to eliminate the need for abortion", and "Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process".

William F. Buckley wrote in a 1984 article "the United States accomplished far more in Mexico than anyone had a right to expect, especially in light of the near hysteria with which the press and birth-control advocates greeted the official U.S. population policy statement" and "given the intensity of the attacks on the U.S. position on abortion ("The United States does not consider abortion an acceptable element of family-planning programs"), we took considerable satisfaction from the adoption, by consensus of the conference, of an almost identical position".

The fact that the UNFPA took a similar policy position should be mentioned in the article. Revolutionaryluddite 18:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are conflating issues, RL. The UNFPA position is that abortion should be a last resort, not that abortion or information about abortion be surpressed.  Your reference says, "Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority and every attempt should be made to eliminate the need for abortion. Women who have unwanted pregnancies should have ready access to reliable information and compassionate counselling. Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process."  It also states, "In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe."  --Justine4all 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The UNFPA has stated elsewhere that it does not "provide support for abortion services", as this article points out. Just because group members believe "In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe" doesn't mean they actually perform abortions or support other groups that do. If the group does either of those things, this article should mention that fact. Also, the Mexico City Policy does not "supress" anything; it prevents US taxpayer funds from promoting abortions or funding abortions. Revolutionaryluddite 19:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the point you are trying to make? This seems to me an attempt at original research. --Justine4all 21:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point you're trying to make. In my initial post, I said that since the UNFPA has taken a similiar position regarding family planning to the US under the Mexico City Policy-- as one reliable source has stated-- this fact should be included in the article. The article already notes that The UNFPA states that it does not "provide support for abortion services". Is this a misinterpretation of what they have said? Revolutionaryluddite 22:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually beginning to think that the "Related policies" section should be removed entirely, or, at least, integrated into other sections. The comparison of the Mexico City Policy to the Sandbaek Report could be transferred to "Debate over the policy," or perhaps we could simply add a link to Sandbaek Report under the "See also" section, with a clarification of the topic's relevance to this one per WP:GTL. As for the paragraph about the UNFPA and China, I don't see the bearing this has on the Mexico City Policy, unless it is the fact that in this case the U.S. withheld funds from an NGO for a reason related to abortion. Do we have a source to establish that this decision on the part of the Bush administration was motivated by or the result of enforcement of the Mexico City Policy? If not, I don't think it needs to be covered here, because I think this article should remain focused on things directly related to the Mexico City Policy. There are separate articles on the United Nations Population Fund and the One-Child Policy in which the UNFPA/China topic can be discussed.
 * As for the observation that there is a similarity between U.S. policy and U.N. policy, unless we have a source that clearly states one policy was inspired by or resulted in the other, then I think the comparison between the two could be seen as original synthesis. -Severa ( !!! ) 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some infocreep there. I don't think the text should be removed entirely, though, maybe most of it should be moved to the other pages with a quick summary note on this page. Revolutionaryluddite 00:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * William F. Buckley made such a comparison when the policies were first announced. Revolutionaryluddite 00:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article you've linked is actually attributed to a William F. Buckley's brother, James L. Buckley. I'm thinking the first paragraph of the "Related policies" section should be moved to "Debate," while the second paragraph should be removed, as it isn't really pertinent to the subject of this article. Any commentary from Buckley should be attributed to him in the article and could be added to the end of what is currently the first paragraph of "Related policies" as both discuss the UNFPA. -Severa ( !!! ) 01:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, I think if the UNFPA is mentioned than the related controversy about the organization should also be mentioned. I'm not too sure about it, but I think that both paragraphs should be moved to 'Debate'. Revolutionaryluddite 02:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Why would related controversies about the organization be relevant?--Justine4all 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't the controversies be relevant? If the fact that the US does not fund UNFPA is mentioned, then the reasons why the US does not should also be mentioned. Revolutionaryluddite 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unclear, uncited pop-culture reference
"It also formed a sizable part of the 2007-2008 High School policy debate topic with almost one half of the teams running a case interacting with this topic."

I've just removed this text from the "References in popular culture" section for a few reasons: 1. It lacks citation of any sort; 2. It lacks anything to indicate what it actually refers to. It's not wiki-linked anywhere, and it's vague enough that I'm not sure if Policy debate is the right referent. Even if it is, that article doesn't seem to refer to a particular organization or program. 3. Sad as it may be, I'm not sure how notable high school policy debates are, compared to an evening show on a broadcast network. 98.212.137.224 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

May be there's a "not" too many?
I guess the "not" in the following sentence should not be there, or did I misunderstand something?

"Even if these organizations support the [Mexico] policy itself, it is illegal for them not to inform a woman seeking an abortion of her rights, and/or refer her to a facility where she may have an abortion." (bold by myself)

This policy is totally against abortion, so wouldn't it make more sense if it was actually illegal for the organization receiving US funding to tell the women in question that if they go "over there" they will get their abortion from another organization that is funded, say, by the Belgian taxpayer.

Because the way it is written now it would be illegal for the organization receiving US funding not to inform the woman where she could get an abortion ("You can't get it here because of the Mexico policy, but you can get it over there").--Soylentyellow (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Vatican view
In Rome, archbishop Rino Fisichella has stated that he (and the Church) is against the move to rescind the policy, although it's not clear whether it is entirely relevant to mention that in the article right now. ADM (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Difference source on rescinding the policy??
Shouldn't the source on the policy being rescinded be the actual memoranda rescinding it, instead of the commentary afterwards?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationPlanning/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.10.114 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues
If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That two-year-old discussion has now been archived here. It discusses the WP:NPOV use of the phrase "Mother" vs. "Pregnant woman" in articles on abortion, and is not particularly relevant to this article which currently contains neither. -- 182.232.144.48 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fate of Boxer amendment
The "History of the policy" section currently states:
 * In September 2007, Barbara Boxer, a Senator from California, created an amendment designed to lift the funding conditions put in place by the Mexico City Policy. It passed by a vote of 53-41. President Bush promised to veto any legislation which would eliminate the Mexico City Policy.

What was the fate of this amendment? Was it killed in the house, or did it reach the president's desk and get vetoed? -- 182.232.144.48 (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Tense
I understand the reason for saying "The Mexico City Policy... was an intermittent... policy," but I think that's premature. I've changed it to present tense, with another sentence explaining it hasn't been in effect since January 2009. Given that the policy has been consistently active under Republican administrations and inactive under Democratic ones since its inception, it's a near certainty that the policy will be reinstated at some point. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"The August 1984 announcement by President Obama"
History lesson: Obama was not President in 1984.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Mexico City Policy. 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/20130329101241/http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/restrictions.html to http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/restrictions.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080126230722/http://www.pathfind.org:80/site/PageServer?pagename=Advocacy_Resources_Fact_Sheets_Gag_Rule to http://www.pathfind.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Advocacy_Resources_Fact_Sheets_Gag_Rule
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010123-5.html

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) 12:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mexico City policy. 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/20070831000627/http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Global_Gag_Rule_and_US_HIV_AIDS_Assistance/Summary.shtml to http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Global_Gag_Rule_and_US_HIV_AIDS_Assistance/Summary.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409232811/http://www.sierraclub.org/population/global_gag_rule/ to http://www.sierraclub.org/population/global_gag_rule/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401120121/http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_ggrbush.html to http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_ggrbush.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514081215/http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/070719gagrule.html to http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/070719gagrule.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014121849/http://iepfpd.org/index.asp?ID=373&id_sous_menu=26 to http://www.iepfpd.org/index.asp?ID=373&id_sous_menu=26
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705023236/http://www.nchla.org/factdisplay.asp?ID=20 to http://www.nchla.org/factdisplay.asp?ID=20
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021011957/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQyZTVjMjJhYTk0YzY4OWUyZDgxY2JmOGE1OGI3NzY%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQyZTVjMjJhYTk0YzY4OWUyZDgxY2JmOGE1OGI3NzY%3D
 * Added tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010205/ai_n14365324
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824121135/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL08/united_nations_population_fund_h.htm to http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL08/united_nations_population_fund_h.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) 13:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexico City policy. 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/20070709172536/http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/international-issues/gag-rule-13105.htm to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/international-issues/gag-rule-13105.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028021950/http://nchla.org/factdisplay.asp?ID=21 to http://www.nchla.org/factdisplay.asp?ID=21

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) 11:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense nonsentence
Currently the article reads:

From 1973 on, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has followed the Mexico City Policy for 17 of the past 32 years

The only time this sentence could possibly have made any sense (and even then it would have been poorly written) would have been in 2005. Maybe it dates from then; I don't know. But it needs correcting now. I will check the source and fix it. Unschool 04:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is completely plagiarized
the article plagarizes this website:https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/mexico-city-policy-explainer/Goaliepowers (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but on what basis do you say that, ? This copyvio checker shows the similarities of text used. I note that link you supplied was published in January 2019, whereas the content of this page was published well before that. Sometimes lazy people - even journalists - like to copy from Wikipedia. Could this be the case here, do you not think? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The 2019 Lancet study on the effects of the Mexico City policy should be in the lede
Peer-reviewed research on the effects of the policy is highly notable and belongs in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans added a sentence to the lead regarding one individual study of the Mexico City policy. I removed that sentence, but left information about the study in the body of the article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&diff=905338770&oldid=904444504). Per MOS:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Furthermore, a lead "should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." The Mexico City policy has been in effect during the Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and administrations. It has been the subject of debate for decades. What is so significant about this one study that it belongs in the lead? Unless the study has had a significant impact on the policy, or on the debate surrounding it, it does not seem lead-worthy. If this study has had such an impact, surely there should be reliable sources that say so; those sources should be included. If not, the study should stay in the body of the article only. Furthermore, given that the study in question found that the policy was counterproductive in terms of its stated goals, including it in the lead (especially without offering any additional perspectives) raises WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV concerns. SunCrow (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I sifted through the existing academic literature on the policy. All of the peer-reviewed literature finds that the policy increases unintended pregnancies and abortions. Research also indicates that the policy adversely affects health. The body now covers four peer-reviewed publications, as well as three editorials by recognized experts in top public health publications. The content should be in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. SunCrow (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans: I'm making the sentence in the lede about the effects of the policy more tentative because the articles cited do not support the claim. The sentence currently reads "Research shows that [...] the Mexico City policy has had the inadvertent impact of increasing unintended pregnancies and abortions.".  In contrast, [one of the cited articles](https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/55184/1/MPRA_paper_55184.pdf) says (for example): "Table 7 shows the estimates of the policy’s impact on the share of pregnancies ending in abortion for the full sample and the same subgroups. For the full sample, the coefficient is positive, though not statistically different from zero at a standard level."  The second sentence means that the research in fact found no such effect.  The effects of the policy are an interesting question, and deserve to be in the article, but the sentence as it stands is not correct, so I'm changing it. - 31.127.148.247  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.148.247 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The study literally says "I also find an increase in the use of induced abortion in rural areas, but only for women in the top three wealth quintiles." In other words, the policy induced abortions. Anyway, that's only one of multiple studies cited. If you want to change longstanding language, you need to get consensus for it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The study does indeed literally say that. It finds that abortion went up in some places and down in others, and found no significant increase overall.  I'm not sure what "inaccurately reading stats" in your summary is supposed to mean.  Could you say what you think "For the full sample, the coefficient is positive, though not statistically different from zero at a standard level" means?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.148.247 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * U.S. President Donald signed executive orders in White House Oval Office on January 23, 2017.jpg