Talk:Planned Parenthood/Archive 15

PPH Funding
On 29 September 2015, Wyoming Rep Lummis made a statement during the course of a congressional hearing. That statement, and the source for her 86% figure, are known and documented. Multiple editors have tried to post that information in this Wiki article only to have their work inexplicably reversed. The various editors who have reversed those entries have proffered no legitimate and factual justification for their reversals. Its obvious they choose to subvert the facts in order to perpetuate ignorance on this subject. Aspencork (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. This is just a flyby comment on my part, but I seem to remember a Politifact or some similarly sourced article that disputed the 86% of non-government revenue figure claimed by Lummis. Motsebboh (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes: Aspencork thinks we should add a sentence to the article, supported by the Politifact source, making a claim that the source concludes is false. Utterly embarrassing. --JBL (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to assume good faith with an edit that adds a claim which the cited source identifies, clearly and explicitly, as false. Unless Aspencork did not read the source, in which case he is merely disqualifyingly incompetent. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No. The Politifact article did not factually discredit what Lummis said, and it's false to claim that it did.  What's incompetent and embarrassing is how some people cannot read and understand that Politifact was focused on how Loesche misused Lummis's statement by omitting the term: "non-government"; not what Lummis said.  The article even notes that Richards excuse was "abortion procedures are probably more expensive than some other procedures that we — that we provide, which might, you know, might explain what you're trying to get at."  Aspencork (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 5: "[T]he figure ... [is] flawed." This is not tricky textual analysis, here.  Please stop wasting the time of other editors with this nonsense. --JBL (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, the flawed figure that the Politifact article refers to, Aspen and JBL, is pundit Dana Loesch's figure that 86% of Planned Parenthood Parenthood's total income comes from abortion rather than the 86% of non-governmental income that Rep. Lummis claimed. The article basically addresses Loesch's claim. However, there is stuff in the Politifact article that indicates that the Lummis figure is probably too high as well. Leaving Lummis's claim in our article unchallenged would be misleading, and as the Politifact article indicates, given the existing stats from Planned Parenthood, there is no handy-dandy way of coming to the correct figure. Motsebboh (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Motsebboh: And that is exactly what I stated earlier: Politifact was addressing what Loesch said; not Lummis. Those who maintain Politifact substantively disproved Lummis's statement fallaciously misrepresent what the article actually says. Furthermore, "probably" doesn't equate to "definitively", and it's PPH's mendacious accounting process that is the source of any confusion: not Lummis.  FACT: Lummis made the statement based figures drawn from PPH's annual report; hence, there is no valid justification for keeping Lummis's statement out of the article.  Aspencork (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * One reason the best version of the 86% figure could still be incorrect is PPFA's pricing system... 86%, if I'm not mistaken, comes from the product of PPFA's annual abortion figure and the price given on their website for abortions. But the price is listed as an "up to..." number, and they have not published either the abortion-related revenue or the number of people who receive abortions at a discount. 146.23.3.250 (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, everyone wants to ignore Richards' excuse for the high percentage when she explained that maybe abortion services were more expensive. Aspencork (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This talkpage is not a forum for you to complain about Planned Parenthood. Discussion here should revolve around the content of reliable sources. So far, the source you've presented (Politifact 10/5/2015) specifically calls out as false the assertion that PP derives 86% of its revenue from abortions. The fact that editors are trying to knowingly insert false information into the article speaks very poorly of them. (Parenthetically, PolitiFact also notes a number of other false, misleading, and deceptive claims made by anti-abortion politicians against PP in the recent hearings). If we choose to cover these hearings, then we need to do so with some level of basic honesty and respect for the sources. MastCell Talk 15:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Politifact does NOT call Lummis statement "false"; the individuals being "dishonest" are the ones who say it does. No one has yet cited from the article where Politifact says Lummis's statement is false: the article says Loesch misquoted Lummis. Aspencork (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Consensus here is quite clear. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A "consensus" built on purposefully misrepresenting what the article actually says. Aspencork (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Aspencork, the problem with your entry: "During a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, with Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards present on September 29, 2015, Wyoming Representative Cynthia Lummis cited that Planned Parenthood’s 2013-14 annual report indicated some 86% of PPFA non-government revenue came from abortion services." is that it gives the false impression that the Lummis's 86% "citation" is an undisputed fact that comes right from Planned Parenthood's annual report. It isn't; it is a guesstimation based on insufficient data. Motsebboh (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Lummis's statement is based on PPH's annual report. Lummis spelled out exactly how she arrived at her figure based on PPH's annual report. Richards "excused" the "86%" figure as the cost of doing business.  Lummis's statement was not proved "false" by Politifact as so many here dishonestly claim.  Aspencork (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Would it be fair to say that the proposed consensus goes like this: "The congressional hearing revealed that at least half of PPFA's revenue is NOT from abortions... and the rest is pretty much unknown because it's not reported"? This is not to say that the 86% figure IS wrong, but that Wikipedia doesn't have sufficient evidence to report on the question, "How much of the revenue comes from abortions?"  -146.23.3.250 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * But that's not what Representative Lummis actually said during the Congressional hearing documented on C-SPAN, is it?


 * Wyoming Representative Cynthia Lummis statement was: “If you look at the 2013 statistics that you report, abortions, from revenue, would have been over 86% of your non-government (health services) revenue.


 * “How do you explain this massive disparity between the amount of revenue you collect from abortion and the fact that you only report 3% of your services being abortion?”


 * To which PPH CEO Cecile Richards later replied: “It is important to understand that abortion procedures are probably more expensive than some other procedures that we provide...”


 * Oh, regarding your so-called *consensus*, I'd be the editor who is not one of PPH's paid advocates mendaciously misrepresenting the Politifact article. Aspencork (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's enough, Aspencork. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You, Roscelese, would be one of those mendaciously misrepresenting what the article reports, or you are "merely disqualifyingly incompetent." Aspencork (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a pure personal attack. If you have something useful to say, feel free, but this kind of behavior is not acceptable.  I would rather not need to request an administrator to deal with your behavior, so please stop. --JBL (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Aspencork. What I would suggest, instead of the insults, is that you (or any other editor) look for estimates that have been made not just by Cynthia Lummis, but by other sources (I believe there was one in National Review, for example) as to the percentage of Planned Parenthood's income that fees from abortions represent. Then you might be able to include this information using wording like ''Critics such as. . . have claimed that between. . and. . percent of Planned Parenthood's income (or non-governmental income) is derived from abortion services.'' Motsebboh (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that I am skeptical that such a sentence deserves to be in the article. Some people who think abortion is eevil seem to think it's really, really important to mention every single possible characterization of the amount of eevil that PP is involved in, but this article is not titled "Planned Parenthood is eevil and bad and icky and here's why", it's titled "Planned Parenthood"; usual considerations of editorial thoughtfulness and weight apply. --JBL (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Eevil?? It's not a question of whether editors think that Planned Parenthood is evil, it's a question of public perception including those who think the organization is wonderful and those who think that it is "bad and icky"; because the organization most assuredly IS controversial. As to the specific matter at hand, Planned Parenthood has certainly pushed the idea that abortion represents only three percent its services and thus its critics have, quite understandably, pushed the idea that abortion represents a far higher than three percent share of its income. Motsebboh (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Motsebboh One source was CEO Richards herself. She conceded Lummis figures might be right when she attributed Lummis figures as being derived from the high cost of the procedure. Politifact is another source; they admitted that they couldn't prove Lummis figures wrong. Instead, Politifact blamed Planned Parenthood's lack of transparency for their [Politifact] failure to determine whether or not Lummis was correct. Regarding any insults, I put them in quotation marks for a reason. I was literally and inferentially referred to as stupid, illiterate, incompetent and a liar by JBL, Roscelese and Mastcell as they wholly misrepresented what was reported in the Politifact article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspencork (talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Tempers tend to run hot on anything having to do with abortion. Again, I think your best bet would be to collect what seem like reasonable estimates of Planned Parenthood's income from abortion coming from fairly respectable sources (ones that would be acceptable as sources of opinion) and present them as estimates. Something like "Critics of Planned Parenthood have estimated that between _ and _ percent of its non-governmental income is derived from abortion services" [sources]. You, could, of course, name the sources right in the text making it easier for the reader to know where these estimates are coming from, but I would not phrase it as though any particular estimate is an unchallenged fact. Motsebboh (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that adding poorly sourced guesstimates and falsehoods to the article is a good idea, even if we preface them with a perfunctory "Critics say..." As with most controversial topics, good writing starts with good sources. I would suggest we move away from partisan op-eds and dubious claims from politicians (particularly when there is a long track record of such sources disseminating outright falsehoods about Planned Parenthood) and instead look for independent, reliable sources. It's pretty simple, and even better, it's the way this site is supposed to operate. MastCell Talk 03:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As Judge Judy might say, "Don't pee on my leg and call it rain", MastCell. The existing sourcing of this article is hardly pristine. It contains tons of primary sources and other sources (Salon, Slate, HuffPo, Ms Magazine, The Nation, etc.) biased in favor of the subject. In no way did I suggest adding "falsehoods" to the article. I said "reasonable estimates"; i.e. estimates based on reason, and presented as estimates, not as incontrovertible fact. Planned Parenthood has quite deliberately emphasized the notion that abortions are only three percent of what it does, and to some extent that self-serving notion if reflected in Wikipedia's article. For example, in a couple of places "abortion" comes at the end of a laundry list of Planned Parenthood services, and in the lead the total of its "discrete services" is compared to the total of its abortion procedures. Yes, my steakhouses provide more than twice as many parsley sprigs and fully three times as many napkins as it does steaks. Steaks are only a small part of what we do. Motsebboh (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourcing in the article could certainly be better. I think we agree on that. So presumably we also agree that the way forward is not to add additional low-quality partisan sources. That's my point. MastCell Talk 16:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If I am wrong in this assumption, please show me, but I suspect that your objections to pro-Planned Parenthood sources tend to be theoretical and passive while your objections to anti-Planned Parenthood sources tend to be quite active. What you've said above really amounts to "We already have lots of low quality sources that support Planned Parenthood so let's not add low quality sources that criticize Planned Parenthood." Motsebboh (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I've ever stood in the way of removing low-quality sources, either pro- or anti-PP, please show me where. Otherwise, probably better to keep your assumptions to yourself. MastCell Talk 17:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above: The existing sourcing of this article is hardly pristine. It contains tons of primary sources and other sources (Salon, Slate, HuffPo, Ms Magazine, The Nation, etc.) biased in favor of the subject and very few biased against it. This seems to be an article that you have been monitoring for quite some time, so I wouldn't say that you've exactly been a whirlwind when it comes to objecting to pro-Planned Parenthood sources, though I did notice ONE instance where you did . That's better than most editors here, I guess. Motsebboh (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Dead links x22
Reflinks reported and tagged 22 dead links on this page. Anybody want to fix? Cheers! 03:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅! Safehaven86 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , Thanks. Nice job. Next time I'll fix all the low-hanging fruit and just leave the hard ones for you. You put in a lot of effort and it shows. . Cheers!  00:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! Safehaven86 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Transclusion from the anti-abortion violence article to Planned Parenthood article completed
I have created a transclusion so the lead of the anti-abortion violence automagically transcludes to the Violence by anti abortion activists section on this article. Any updates made to the lead of the anti-abortion violence article will automatically update over here to that section only. Cheers! 08:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Awful change. The content here before was specifically about attacks on Planned Parenthood, including a few really notable ones. Did you do this on purpose?? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The content must be about violence against Planned Parenthood clinics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Further agreement: this seems very badly conceived. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The non-transcluded version has now been restored; thanks! --JBL (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Transclusion from PP2015UVC article to Planned Parenthood article completed
I have created a transclusion so the lead of the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover video controversy automagically transcludes to the Center for Medical Progress videos section on this article. Any updates made to the lead of the PP2015UVC will automatically update over here to that section only. Cheers! 10:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice, thank you! Safehaven86 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * and, do you think it would be better if the sourcing transclusion article were semi-protected similar to the final transclusion article? Since Planned Parenthood is locked, I thought maybe that we should avoid sneaky vandalism through the transclusion link by semi-protecting Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover video controversy as well. -SocraticOath (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are three problems with this transclusion: the protection problem mentioned above, the fact that you don't get any citations (because it's a lead section), and that readers end up reading the exact same text twice if you follow the link to the main article. I would favor restoring the original summary (with citations) and allowing it to exist as separate prose. Kaldari (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Agenda based editing
This individual: Motsebboh Edited the article and singled out abortion (and deleted the references to their other services the organization provides while also deleting several sources), in his edit despite the fact that the organization provides far more then just abortion services, it may be against the rules, and I believe that edit should be reversed, perhaps give abortion its own section. '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.92.99 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article? Planned Parenthood's individual services are listed in the section labeled, appropriately enough, "Services." The reason why the number of abortions Planned Parenthood conducts is singled out in the lead and contrasted with the total number of "discrete services" performed at PP centers, is because its abortion services are vastly more controversial than anything else PP does. That controversy is well reflected in the body of the article. Motsebboh (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2015
Please reword the last sentence of this small paragraph under the 'Services' heading

Given that each patient receives about three services on average, the percent of abortions provided out of the total services provided—3%—may not clearly represent the importance of abortion to PPFA.[8] Each year, 12 percent of PPFA's patients gets an abortion,[44] which is expensive when compared with other services.[45][46]

The 12 percent figure is an estimate by Politifact as reported by the source listed at [44] and should carry an appropriate qualifier. Also the subordinate clause "which is expensive when compared with other services" does not illustrate the facts stated in sources [45] and [46] that while government money is used to fund planned parenthood that money may not be used to fund abortions [46] and as such abortions result in revenue for planned parenthood [45].

Please reword to read "Each year, 12 percent of PPFA's patients gets an abortion.[44] While abortions are more expensive than other services performed at PPFA they are not covered by federal funding under Title X and therefore generate revenue for PPFA.[45][46]

129.42.208.184 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously not. --JBL (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Current event unfolding
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/27/active-shooter-at-planned-parenthood-in-colorado-springs-police-and-fire-officials-say/ -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This may have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood at all, other than location. "Authorities say they haven't determined a motive or whether the shooter had any connection to Planned Parenthood." . The 2015 "attack" section may also be premature until supporting information regarding a motive is available. Velojareal (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Motive is pretty clear now.Mattnad (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

New poll finds most Americans favor defunding Planned Parenthood
"A nationwide poll conducted by the Robert Morris University Polling Institute found that 53.3 percent of those surveyed support moving federal funding from Planned Parenthood to community clinics that do not offer abortions, while 31.5 percent are opposed." Very nteresting to note since most polls performed recently exclusively ask a yes or no answer instead of briefly commenting or explaining that curren Republican proposals are to shift funding to non-abortion community centers or clinics. 190.167.197.24 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A recent poll found that a majority of wikipedia editors support the defunding of IP editors who can't distinguish reliable sources from partisan attacks. --JBL (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The logo in the infobox for this article has been nominated for deletion
The Planned Parenthood logo in the infobox for this article has been nominated for deletion. See the discussion here: . Cheers! 09:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was keep. Cheers!  16:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

History/Richards
has recently added an obviously inappropriate sentence to the history section: first, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the history of PP, and second, it just repeats inane he-said-she-said journalism that couldn't even be bothered to evaluate whether the statements being transcribed are accurate or not. Since Checkingfax couldn't be bothered to follow WP:BRD, here is a section to discuss it. I propose instead the following sentence, which has the virtue of actually belonging in a section on the history of PP: Richard's tenure has coincided with a period of widespread polarization and politicization around the issue of abortion, and Planned Parenthood has become more directly engaged in politics during her presidency. sourced to this American Prospect profile. I invite constructive comments. (I cannot add this sentence myself because of 1-RR.) --JBL (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If people feel that the source is adequate, then I think that that's a much more encyclopedic addition. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know how people feel about American Prospect, but I thought this was a pretty neutral claim to take out of what looked like a deeply reported (if obviously ideological) piece. There are numerous other profiles of Richards out there, and I'm sure the same information could be sourced elsewhere, but this was the first one I came across.  --JBL (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your suggested entry: "Richards' tenure has coincided . . " is neutrally worded but it is historically misleading, if not just plain inaccurate. Planned Parenthood has been deep in the national political fray for several decades now, long before Richards took over, both hitting hard and taking hard hits, mainly on the issue of abortion. As a source for factual information about Richards and Planned Parenthood  American Prospect is hardly ideal: "Cecile Richards: Grace Under Fire: Richards faces down attacks that may yet backfire on the right." It doesn't get much more partisan than that. Motsebboh (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence it has been more polarized under Richards though? This all came about as I am reviewing this for GA status (which will be good to achieve as it will be in effect a Stable Version of sorts) - so adding info on that and trying to ensure comprehensiveness now would be a Really Good Thing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While we're at it then, does anyone have anything to add about Richards' tenure? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Motsebboh, do you have anything constructive to add? --JBL (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Motsebboh does make a good point that "coincided with a period of widespread polarization and politicization around the issue of abortion" isn't a clear summation of the paragraph/s beginning "Hiring Richards, in many ways"... The paragraph is saying that Richards was hired because of the politicization and polarization (think of the terrorism in the 90s), not that it has increased during her tenure - and also that divisions seem to be more along party lines than they used to be. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes (in response to JBL), somewhere in the history section we should mention the now routine practice of having Planned Parenthood presidents testify at Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nominations of Supreme Court justices. I suspect that it started with the hearings for Robert Bork in 1986 but I'm not sure. Motsebboh (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That would totally be worth mentioning if you found any sources that mention it -- my two-minute search turned up nothing. As for the sentence I proposed, what about a version that took the focus off Richards somewhat and placed it as part of a longer trend?  --JBL (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, "part of a longer trend" is much better. Richards's predecessors Faye Wattleton (damned fine-looking woman), and Gloria Feldt were both heavily involved in abortion politics. Motsebboh (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

After Sanger
This is the section we are working on. It is a progressive history of each leader after Sanger:

Following Margaret Sanger, Alan Frank Guttmacher became president of Planned Parenthood, serving from 1962 until 1974. During his tenure, the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of the original birth control pill, giving rise to new attitudes towards women's reproductive freedom. Also during his presidency, Planned Parenthood lobbied the federal government to support reproductive health, culminating with President Richard Nixon's signing of Title X to provide governmental subsidies for low-income women to access family planning services. The Center for Family Planning Program Development was also founded as a semi-autonomous division during this time. The center became an independent organization and was renamed the Guttmacher Institute in 1977.



Faye Wattleton became the first African American president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1978. Wattleton, who was also the youngest president in Planned Parenthood's history, served in this role until 1992. During her term, Planned Parenthood grew to become the seventh largest charity in the country, providing services to four million clients each year through its 170 affiliates, whose activities were spread across 50 states.

From 1996 to 2006, Planned Parenthood was led by Gloria Feldt. Feldt activated the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF), the organization's political action committee, launching what was the most far reaching electoral advocacy effort in its history. The PPAF serves as the nonpartisan political advocacy arm of PPFA. It engages in educational and electoral activity, including legislative advocacy, voter education, and grassroots organizing to promote the PPFA mission. Feldt also launched the Responsible Choices Action Agenda, a nationwide campaign to increase services to prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve quality of reproductive care, and ensure access to safe and legal abortions. Another initiative was the commencement of a "Global Partnership Program", with the aim of building a vibrant activist constituency in support of family planning.

On February 15, 2006, Cecile Richards, the daughter of former Texas governor Ann Richards, and formerly the deputy chief of staff to the U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (the Democratic Leader in the United States House of Representatives), became president of the organization. In 2012 Richards was voted one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World. In 2015 while testifying before the House of Representatives, Richards was accused of allowing Planned Parenthood to make flamboyant use of over US$40million. While under her watch Planned Parenthood was chastised for spending the money on ritzy parties, private jets, and other discretionary expenses. The Washington lawmakers also questioned the merit of Richard's US$600,000 annual salary.

The portion on Cecile Richards (a woman) was severely lacking in substance when compared with her predecessors, including Sanger. the Good Article reviewer asked for more substance. With references I came up with the following:

On February 15, 2006, Cecile Richards, the daughter of former Texas governor Ann Richards, and formerly the deputy chief of staff to the U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (the Democratic Leader in the United States House of Representatives), became president of the organization. In 2012 Richards was voted one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World. In 2015 while testifying before the House of Representatives, Richards was accused of allowing Planned Parenthood to make flamboyant use of over US$40million. While under her watch Planned Parenthood was chastised for spending the money on ritzy parties, private jets, and other discretionary expenses. The Washington lawmakers also questioned the merit of Richard's US$600,000 annual salary.

It is written from a WP:NPOV and includes the good, the bad, and the ugly. That is just how it came out of the reliable sources. None of the sources gladhanded nor bashed her. They are WP:Reliable sources. I added that she was the Governor's daughter, Pelosi's deputy chief of staff, one of Time's most influential, and that she was grilled before congress. It was out in the open to be edited, not to be deleted.

Discussion and comment section
Cheers! 13:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We might preview later sections of the article by mentioning Planned Parenthood's increasing involvement in abortion politics after Roe. By the way, and this could be useful in a number of article besides this one, is the fact that Sanger not only didn't endorse abortion as a woman's right, but also had plenty of bad things to say about it, ever mentioned in this or any other Wikipedia article? Just when Planned Parenthood started openly endorsing the legality of abortion would be useful information.
 * The last paragraph which deals with Cecile Richards's tenure should avoid adjectives such as "flamboyant" and "ritzy" which are not encyclopedic. Also, if we are going to say that she has been "chastised", the reader should clearly be told BY WHOM. "Criticized" would be better in any case. Motsebboh (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The content on Richards drawn from a news article about a Congressional hearing is still bad, for the exact same reasons mentioned in the previous section of this talk page. It does not belong in the article.
 * About 's first sentence: some of this discussion already exists in the paragraph about Feldt's tenure, and you objected to my suggested sentence in this direction about Richards. Perhaps you (M) could suggest some actual language?  --JBL (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree that the material on Richards's Congressional committee appearance seems to lack journalistic "legs" and thus probably shouldn't be mentioned here per WP:Recentism. Again, Planned Parenthood's increasing involvement, both voluntarily and involuntarily, in abortion politics should probably be mentioned in this After Sanger subsection. If I have the time I may look into the sourcing and wording for such an addition. Motsebboh (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be really good to find sources/discussion (from both sides) on Planned Parenthood and abortion issues as it is a central arguing point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * . Cheers!  08:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Good Article decision
Hi y'all. We are moving closer to the decision on whether we make the cut as a Good Article. I am a substantial contributor to this article, but not the only one. Please feel free to add your username as a co-nominee if you have significantly contributed to this article. Please continue to contribute during the process. Cheers! 00:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Specifically, is there any concrete discussion over there being any difference in policy between the various presidents? I just realised we don't have all of them listed, so I take it the others (1974-78, 1992-96) weren't really notable? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are some small facts regarding the gaps in presidency from 1974-78, 1992-96, and which I hope may be of use: Jack H.Vaughn was President of Planned Parenthood from 1974 to 1975, and Tenny Marshall was Acting President in 1978. Other people of interest are Henrietta Marshall, who was on the board of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA for over 30 years, and chairman in the '70's. She was on the board of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, chairing it from 1975-1978. Also, at present, Juel Brathwaite-Alleyne is Manager at the Guttmacher Institute which is the education and research arm of Planned Parenthood, focused on advocacy of abortion. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Parental consent laws
In this series of edits, replaced the sentence "The Federation opposes restrictions on women's reproductive health services, including parental consent laws" with "The Federation opposes restrictions on women's reproductive health services, including parental consent laws for abortions on minors." The sourcing here isn't great, but I think that these edits narrow the issue incorrectly. In particular, there have been a variety of efforts at different levels to impose parental consent requirements for other sexual health care, such as contraception (see e.g., (neither of which mentions PP) and  (which is information for patients so not explicitly about advocating for or against laws)). I am inclined to restore the original wording, but I thought I would lay out my reasoning first and have a chance at a bit of discussion before I do so. --JBL (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Two more links: "Planned Parenthood Advocates of New York believes that minors' health and safety is best protected by ensuring their confidential access to reproductive health services, including family planning, disease prevention, and abortion. ... PPANY opposes government-mandated parental consent and parental notification requirements."  Clear and broad.  Also, more circumstantial, from Utah:  "By state law, local health department clinics must require written parental consent to provide birth control services to unmarried minors under age 18.  Birth control services provided by Planned Parenthood Clinics do not require parental consent." --JBL (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see JBL's point here. However, If the wording "The Federation opposes restrictions on women's reproductive health services, including parental consent laws" is restored then at least one example of a parental consent law other than for a minor obtaining an abortion should follow. As it stands now the only examples of PP's objections -- the "Becky Bell" objection and the invasion of privacy objection -- are specifically linked to abortion for minors. Motsebboh (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was thinking about this. At the moment actually the referencing here is quite poor, I'm not even really sure it supports the present claim.  (Though I think it should be easy to find a couple more decent sources.)  Part of the problem with finding sources for the broader claim is that the law here has been pretty settled for a while, as discussed in the CRR piece.  I'll have to follow up some of its references, but e.g. the 1983 case Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Utah v. Matheson is on point (summary judgement for the plaintiffs, enjoining the state of Utah from forcing them to inform the parents of minors seeking contraceptives).  The CRR has scholarly references, some of which may discuss this; also one could look for contemporaneous news pieces.  It will certainly take me at least a few days to do this in any seriousness (unless someone else does it first!); a less serious approach would just be to stick in a reference to PPAU v. Matheson.  --JBL (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and restored the previous (somewhat awkward) wording (I kept your link to minors and abortion, but moved it) along with a couple of sources -- there seems to be a 1974 law review article by an R.A. Koch about the case Doe v. Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, but I can't immediately get access to it; obviously it has the potential to be useful here, if someone can dig it up. --JBL (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not mention the fact that ....
User Joel B. Lewis reverted my edit, which pointed out that PP did not start doing abortions until 1970, after Margaret Sanger was dead.

Why shouldn't the article mention the fact that PP did not start doing abortions until 1970, after Margaret Sanger was dead? Isn't that a relevant point which some readers would want to know?

Mr. Lewis also said he objects to the source I used, which is the National Right to Life Committee. I agree this is a biased source, but why would they lie about an historical fact like this, which can be verified? But if you like I'll try to find another source. for the fact that PP did not start doing abortions until 1970, after Margaret Sanger was dead.

I'd like to hear from other editors--isn't the fact that PP did not start doing abortions until 1970, after Margaret Sanger was dead, an interesting fact, worth including in the article? If not, why not? Thanks, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: here's another source. It's also anti-abortion bias (Catholic) but still, it's another source. http://catholicexchange.com/planned-parenthood-abortion-total-tops-4-million HandsomeMrToad (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * FURTHER UPDATE: Aha, an indisputably objective source, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN! "For some people, Planned Parenthood has come to symbolize abortion, which it has provided since 1970."  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/protect-womens-health/   OK, if no one objects, I'll replace the info in the article and use this source.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A trivial note: my signature is "JBL" and I invite you to refer to me either by that name or by my full username. If you insist on title+family name, the correct title to use is "Dr."
 * Substantively, I do not object to including the information that Planned Parenthood did not provide abortions until the 1970s, provided that it is appropriately placed in the article, contextualized in a sensible way, and sourced to a reliable source. I do not think that the original addition met these conditions.  I agree that Scientific American is a presumptive RS for this information, but I would still object to including the same sentence in the same location with the new source.  A more natural location would be the History section.  But of course it needs to fit in to the narrative structure there. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the only place this would fit into the article is in the history section, and that the Scientific American source will work. If included, this information needs to be presented neutrally, as a statement of historical fact about the services offered by this organization at various times, and not as a POV-type statement. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact should be accompanied by a neutral explanation of the reason why PP began performing abortions. What was the situation in the US, what were the factors in the decision. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Right: the death of Margaret Sanger is not the only thing that happened around 1970. --JBL (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I've added one sentence in he "History" section. Feel free to expand it with more details as others have suggested above.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Now JBL has reverted it again, saying only he "objects to it as written". On what grounds? It was NPOV, historically correct, located in the "History" section, sourced to SCI-AM, and did not include the previous extraneous info that PP advocated against abortion before then. I am puzzled and bewildered, also mystified, fogged, and at a loss. Explain objection, please, JBL. AND, if you "object to it as written", why not rewrite, expand, and improve it, rather than removing it??? Thanks! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My comments above express my objections; I invite you to read and respond to them. --JBL (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought I DID respond to them, when I wrote: "[My new entry] was NPOV, historically correct, located in the "History" section, sourced to SCI-AM, and did not include the previous extraneous info that PP advocated against abortion before then." So I don't understand what you object to NOW.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevance of Sanger to the rest of the sentence is unclear and not in the source. Motsebboh's alternative/addition is better (in particular, it has much more explanatory power) but is also not supported by the source.  The sentence is not worked in to the narrative structure, it is just dropped in at the end of a section. --JBL (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For a while now I've noticed a reluctance among certain editors to have Wikipedia note the fact that Sanger said bad things about abortion more often than she said good things (or even neutral things) about it or that she (as far as I know) never advocated its general legalization. I also think it interesting that editors above who disapprove of Catholic Exchange and the National Right to Life Committee as sources for factual information are okay with an editorial from Scientific American for the same info. Motsebboh (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose that you could make this personal (in violation of common sense, good manners, and WP policies and guidelines). Or, you could not act like an asshole by observing WP:AGF and treating my comments at face value.  --JBL (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed your unfailing good manners and refusal to make personal comments here, Doc. Motsebboh (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thus far the best source for this
would actually be HandsomeMrToad's first one, the National Right to Life article. Yes, the source is biased but so are all sorts of other sources for factual information in the article; and we could, of course, simply attribute the material to the author in-line. The RTL article mentions PP's earlier expressed opposition to abortion and the 1970 beginning of its legal abortions. It doesn't specifically note (unless I missed it) that these legal abortions began a few years after Sanger's death so that fact would amount to synthesis and should be left out for now. Motsebboh (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That source is very far from "the best" of anything - I'd suggest that it's so biased that it shouldn't be used in the article at all, actually. I also find this edit extremely misleading - of course they didn't perform abortions when they were not legal, but that does not mean that they didn't support legalization, something that PP had done for years by 1970. If you want to raise the "historical statements" opposing abortion then they need to be properly contextualized (and sourced). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of things to respond to here. Actually, Planned Parenthood, as far as I know had not been urging the general legalization of abortion for an especially long time before 1970. Also, as JBL noted, you have reverted back to a wording which is also not supported by its source. Nothing about 'more than three years after Sanger's death' or 'after several states legalized' it in the Sci-American article. Again, I'm struck by how certain editors are perfectly okay with ardently pro-choice sources but not with ardently pro-life sources. More to say, but I have to run now.Motsebboh (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortunately we don't write articles based on individual editors' "as far as I know" generalizations! You are incorrect about the timing of their abortion rights advocacy. I don't like the current version either am working on something that's actually accurate and we'll sourced, will sub that in shortly. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you know and can source when Planned Parenthood first began to openly advocate for broad legal abortion then please do so. don't just say that I'm wrong based on your own "as far as I know." Once again, what's with "pro-life sources are bad, pro-choice sources are A-Okay" assumption?? Motsebboh (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well from my point of view it's more of a "news releases from obviously biased activist organization are bad, peer-reviewed academic sources are good" issue. Take a look at the 2 revisions I just made, I'm not sure we're as far apart on this as you'd think. My issue was primarily with the use of such poor quality sources. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your changes are excellent, actually. You might pinpoint the page numbers of of the source material you are getting from the Leslie Reagan book. The only other quibbles would be the relative soft-pedaling of the negative statements that Sanger made about abortion on a number of occasions. From these one wouldn't get the impression that they were mere pro forma boilerplate. While it shouldn't affect the wording of the article, note that PP didn't begin asking for broad abortion reform until shortly before it actually began to happen and, interestingly, until after Sanger's mind was in decline. Motsebboh (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Planned Parenthood. 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/20110413033532/http://www.businessweek.com:80/archives/1999/b3652114.arc.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1999/b3652114.arc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151127230543/http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29172660/colorado-springs-firefighters-respond-active-shooter-at-planned to http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29172660/colorado-springs-firefighters-respond-active-shooter-at-planned

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) 05:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Breast cancer screening, exams, and mammography
Regarding the recent edit here: which eliminated the reliably sourced information that Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammographies (as apparently lots of people mistakenly believe they do), the better course would have been to include the specific kind of cancer screening PP does perform -- clinical breast exams -- in its list of services, and keep the part about PP not doing mammographies.  Motsebboh (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * FYI: For this and other discussions on this page, it appears that Motsebboh has been blocked as a sock puppet. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

PPFA vs Planned Parenthood
I figure that I should ask before doing this – May I replace the jargon "PPFA" with "Planned Parenthood" throughout the page? The organization is called "Planned Parenthood" familiarly, as a self reference in its logo and elsewhere, and in the title page. Although Planned Parenthood Federation of America may be its corporate name, it's like calling Walmart by its formal 'Walmart Stores' name. And then to add a jargon abbreviation on top of that...

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think I object, but it's worth noting that it's not just jargon: the name "Planned Parenthood" is used by many (related, but distinct) organizations (Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts is not the same organization as PPFA, nor as IPPF, nor as PPAF, and they do different things). So possibly more care is required than just a replace-all.  --JBL (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this article about a specific one of those organizations though? If so then their is no harm using "Planned Parenthood", and simply referring to the others by the full names. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I presume that some statements in the article are about PPFA specifically, others are about particular regional PP organizations, and others are about combinations of several of these organizations. Probably in most cases "Planned Parenthood" is clear; but I think if a switch is going to be made it should be done by a human sensitive to the possibility of confusion, not an automated replace-all.  --JBL (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we really be having an article that is a mixture of such things though. If someone was to read this article would they be looking for just PPFA or about the regional groups too? Even if they were looking for them both do the reliable resources ever use the two terms interchangeably? Emir of Wikipedia (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Planned Parenthood. 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/20160119155715/http://plannedparenthoodaction.org/get-involved/global-reproductive-health-policy/ to https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/get-involved/global-reproductive-health-policy/

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) 22:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

History
Hello,

I would like to expand the history section to include more on where the term planned parenthood came from. Hmprescott (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Please advise.

New York Times: "Planned Parenthood Is Accused of Mistreating Pregnant Employees"
This should be included in the article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/business/planned-parenthood-pregnant-employee-discrimination-women.html

Lpouer4832xs (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be too insignificant at this point or suffering from WP:Recentism. Give it a bit. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Number of abortions per year.
I would like to propose a change

a total of nearly 9.5 million discrete services including 324,000 abortions "(of 652,639 total abortions for 2014 according to CDC) "

To ensure accuracy as "discrete services" is slightly misleading as they provide 49.64% of abortions in the USA per 2014 and thereby would qualify as a major abortion provider. This is not to take away from any other services they may or may not provide.

135.23.244.37 (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Can we find a secondary source that has done the calculation? The CDC report is from 2014 and PPFA's 2014-2015 report has the corresponding numbers. Someone out there has definitely gone over this one. Mwright1469 (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the Limitations section of that CDC report. Such math is impossible, as the CDC "is unable to obtain the total number of abortions performed in the United States". Brad  v  🍁 04:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The real number is closer to 34.9%. (323,999/926,200 )*100% = 35% (one-third). This study is much more accurate. @ Brad . Can we build a consensus around this? I'm surprised it hasn't been talked about yet since we're already saying PPAF is the largest abortion services provider. Mwright1469 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)