:Talk:Crisis pregnancy center

This is my list of stuff to do in the article. Partly for my own reference, but also in case other people want to tackle them, of course.

• try to get demographics of CPC clients: numbers, ages, etc. (need neutral sources for this, or very careful use of promotional sources) Numbers on how many people find CPCs when looking for abortion clinics would be awesome but might not exist. (we do however have two different stats on how many women in Ireland encounter a CPC when looking for non-directive crisis pregnancy counseling)
• include in "activities" a little information on the "delaying" tactic of CPCs (use existing sources, which I'm sure talk about it)
• consider integrating the court cases section to the advertisement section of the article, since they're all about that. Anyhow, the sections in the legal status section are somewhat arbitrary - as we mention in the local ordinances section, there have been court cases about that too, and I'm sure we could rustle up court cases about funding - [http://books.google.com/books?id=bwglJ82CfgMC&pg=PA200 this] info about mandatory counseling isn't a law but would still seem to belong.
• court cases about funding?
• [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16760062141269049723&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr Boes v. Deschu], another court case. Like the others, state-level with no evident fallout, so it may be worth trimming all of them a bit. Though see immediately above re: desirability of section.
• bring things up to date (numbers, funding)
• integrate Ireland section (CPCs vs. legit pregnancy counseling) into other sections of article
• add to "activities" a subsection on adoption ([http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/robbing_the_cradle.html], find more sources)

: Here's a great article on that very thing! [http://www.thenation.com/article/shotgun-adoption# Shotgun Adoption]

• do more with the sources we're aware of but haven't used yet, eg. in the external links, or some that I have bookmarked; there are probably also some that we already cite but could get more from.
• on CPCs' role in the anti-abortion movement (also from sources we have, eg. grassroots, fight)
• web advertising: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/28/naral-successfully-lobbies-google-to-take-down-deceptive-pregnancy-center-ads/]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) (not putting a date so this won't be archived)

• two articles regarding google removing CPC false advertising http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/28/naral-successfully-lobbies-google-to-take-down-deceptive-pregnancy-center-ads/ http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/28/google-removes-misleadingabortionads.html

The above blanket lead statement should either be changed or eliminated altogether. The original statement in this place, sourced to the International Journal of Women's Health read "CPCs aim not to educate and inform but to deceive, hector, and manipulate pregnant women attempting to learn about their pregnancy options." Since this wording obviously included strong POV it was shortened to to the simpler statement. But even this wording is not suitable unless quoted from the source. There is already plenty in the lead to showthat CPCs often use their own "facts" in talking to clients about abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Florida/Discrimination_and_Health_(Spring_2025) | reviewers = Embochowder | start_date = 2025-01-13 | end_date = 2025-04-30 }}

— Assignment last updated by Embochowder (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)