Talk:Pregnancy options counseling

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoejerome. Peer reviewers: Msjohn15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexisdupuy, Ldutre2, Abbyh225.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment

"In fact, such centers exist to manipulate women into continuing their pregnancies, and may use tactics such as providing misinformation that will lead women to delay their decision until they are beyond the legal time limits for pregnancy termination." This statement is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.191.71 (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

I am bringing some of the disputed items to this forum for review. I'll take the first point...

"Pregnancy options counseling should[dubious – discuss] be non-directive; it neither encourages nor discourages any particular course of action."

Although a counselor should be unbiased this is not always the case, so I think this sentence makes perfect sense. I am open to revisions, however. Comments? --User:Monnicat (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

This article was again reverted with no attempts by certain others at discussion. I am replacing it with the version from yesterday that had more contributions and was better expanded. --User:Monnicat (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted again

This article was again reverted with no attempts at discussion. I am hoping that we can dialog about how to make this section useful and fair, rather than an attempt to bash pro-life agencies. --71.224.206.111 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me (forgot to log in!) The former page was intolerable CPC bashing and provides unacceptable misinformation. I am putting a new version up, and I am open to discuss it if Photouploaded will join in the discussion. --User:Monnicat (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongarming your idea of what this article should look like, and YELLING IN ALL CAPS, saying "DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT DISCUSSING" is horrid form. If you think the version is POV, then slap the frigging {{POV}} template on the page and bring up your specific concerns here; don't get revert-happy and threaten other editors. Photouploaded (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both you for coming to the talk page. Now, let's all calm down and take a deep breath. Monnicat: you say the former page was "intolerable" with "unacceptable misinformation". Can you please be more specific. What parts of the article do you find problematic? And it appears that Photouploaded has an issue with your new version. So instead of edit warring, why not make the proposal here, so that others can comment on it and we can work together towards progress. Photouploaded: why specifically have you been reverting Monnicat? What exactly did you not like about the new version which she put up?--Andrew c ^[talk] 21:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in to mediate. Here is why I have been reverting: The bit about Planned Parenthood getting money from abortion, and alluding to PP having an incentive to pressure women into abortion was a horrid bit of POV to shove in there. (Have you ever actually been to a Planned Parenthood, Monnicat? If you had, you would know how wrong that is.) The repeated insistence on capitalizing every word in the section headers. The over-use of parentheses in the lede made the lede unreadable. Moving the so-called "pro-life counseling" to the first position in the list, when the term seems to mean "discussing ALL options", not "pushing our religious/social views on visitors". The biggest problem is that most of what ze added was unsourced editorial commentary. 21:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And maybe to start things off, I'll say what problems I have with this version of the article: The lead of this version is ok, but there are grammatical issues with the second sentence (should there be commas or parentheses around the word "abortion"?) I also don't understand the concept of "open" and "closed" adoption. Is it necessary to introduce those concepts which are never discussed later in the lead? I have issues with the word "should" in the 2nd paragraph. Should wikipedia be saying what "should" and "should not" be? And isn't making that statement an example of wikipedia breaking NPOV and taking sides? The rest of the 2nd paragraph sounds a bit unencyclopedic, almost like a puff piece and the tone is off. The sentence Planned Parenthood generates revenue when clients choose to have abortions, so their options counseling cannot be considered unbiased. is unsourced, and therefore it is original research to make such an accusatory claim. I'm also not sure that it is ok to imply that abortion clinics don't offer "professional counseling". That section is also unsourced.

My issues with this version is that it is even less sourced than the other version and is more of a stub. I guess looking at the two, there is a big difference that we should discuss on talk before proceeding. What is pregnancy options counseling? Do CPC perform "pregnancy options counseling" under this definition, or do they do something else? Do abortion clinics perform "pregnancy options counseling" or do they do something else? Monnicat's version is that all these organizations perform a form of biased "pregnancy options counseling" and only "professionals" do the right form of "pregnancy options counseling". And Photouploaded's version is that abortion clinics perform the "professional" type of "pregnancy options counseling" while CPCs do a biased form. So, what do the sources say? Do we have any source that actually defines "pregnancy options counseling"?? this link looks promising, but it is only for a small state group, and isn't national or international. We really need to get down to the basics, and find out how sources define this term before we proceed further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The problem with the old/current version is the implication that pro-life agencies offer biased counseling, whereas abortion clinics offer fair and professional counseling. I think it's pretty obvious that any clinic that makes money off of a certain choice (i.e. abortion) is suspect, and this conflict of interest at least deserves mention. I don't like the idea that women facing crisis pregnancies might be reading this article and are then mislead to think that Planned Parenthood is offering something unbiased and professional when in fact their 'counselors' might as well be abortion sales people. I propose we remove the old/current text until we can agree on something fair. I don't expect Photouploaded to agree to this since s/he is clearly pushing an agenda, but what do you think, Andrew?--User:Monnicat (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbiased? More about Planned Parenthood. According to their own most recent annual report, during its 2005-2006 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed 264,943 abortions. Of their income, $345 million was from health clinic revenue. They don't say exactly how much of this was made from abortions, but since the typical early abortion costs $300, we can guesstimate that they made about $79 million dollars off abortion. It could be even more if they are doing later term abortions because those are more expensive. So, that is a pretty obvious conflict of interest. If we just go by the numbers, it doesn't seem that their counseling is unbiased -- they only did prenatal care for 12,548 women. If you look at the stats from PPFA's own research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in their Overview of Abortion in the United States you can see that half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended; less than half (4 in 10) of these end in abortion. PPFA's actual services don't anywhere near match women's needs. And, they do almost no adoption referrals. So, the facts strongly support the hypothesis that PPFA has a bias toward performing abortion over supporting a continued pregnancy.--User:Monnicat (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Again... have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood health center? Abortion is a desperately needed medical service that most women simply cannot afford in a private context. The clinics provide abortion at an affordable rate. They also provide affordable gynecological exams, STD tests and treatment, and access to contraception. Perhaps the women who need prenatal care do not want to have to walk by the yammering Christian pamphleteers every time it's time for an checkup. Can you imagine how much louder they would yell at her if she was actually SHOWING? Most women would not want to have to risk having their license plate numbers taken down, their pictures taken and put up on websites, or to have to wear a goddamn T shirt that says "I'M HERE FOR PRENATAL CARE" to avoid religious terrorism.

And as far as adoption goes, there are scads of agencies that want healthy new babies to adopt out... the fact that PP is not an adoption agency and does not set up adoptions themselves does not mean that they don't direct women towards agencies that can help them if that's what they want to do.

Think for a minute about what you are suggesting. You're suggesting that a counselor at a Planned Parenthood would, for some reason, pressure women into choosing abortion, or at least, just make abortion sound the most attractive option, or fail to discuss the other two options. Why? What incentive would they have to do this? Do you honestly believe that the counselor on the phone gets a kickback for every on-the-fence woman they supposedly "persuade" to abort? Do you SEE how nonsensical this is? The very idea of a "conflict of interest" makes no sense whatsoever. Photouploaded (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Monnicat, you have not provided a notable, reliable source that says "Planned Parenthood does not offer unbiased counseling. Here is the evidence." What you are doing here on the talk page is called original research (WP:NOR) and is forbidden in wikipedia articles, because we cannot publish original thought. Imagine what it would be like if wikipedia was the first place to publish the defamatory claim against an organization that they are biased. We simply cannot do that. We can only report on what other notable, reliable sources have written before. I have a feeling that we can probably find a source that accuses PP of being biased in their counseling, but we'll have to be careful to make sure it is notable, and reliable, and then most likely we'll have to attribute that claim to the source instead of stating it as fact. Same thing goes to Photouploaded, we have not cited a single source that says PP is unbiased. We can cite themselves, surely, but we'd have to qualify it as "Planned Parenthood states that it provides unbiased counseling" as opposed to "Planned Parenthood provided unbiased counseling". So both of you have sourcing issues. It is not up to us to determine whether PP is biased or not, and citing personal anecdotal evidence doesn't help because we cannot source that per wikipedia's citing sources guidelines. So as I said before, this is simply a matter of sourcing. What do the sources say about PP's counseling? Also, both of you sound like you have very strong opinions on this matter. And you both have to remember that on wikipedia, we are not here to promote our own personal views. You always have to remember that your view may not be the majority view, or even a notable view, and it is almost never appropriate to try to make the article say what you personally believe.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course Planned Parenthood claims to give "unbiased" counseling. So do CPCs. Do we just take everyone's word at face value? If all agree to just go by what each group says they do, then that is fine by me. But, it seems that you are willing to give Planned Parenthood the benefit of the doubt even though they profit off abortion, whereas CPCs have no financial investment in the outcome of their counseling. I'm not the only one who sees a connection. Here is a quote from an MD responding to an article, in the July 2004 Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol 141(2):

...the National Abortion Federation and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America [are] both organizations with a vested interest in the provision of abortion. To insinuate that these organizations aren't biased while stating that pregnancy care centers [CPCs] are is disingenuous at best.

Here is a quote from a former abortion-provider. Joan Appleton was the head nurse at Commonwealth Women's Clinic in Wasthington, D.C., and an active member of NOW. Recognizing the harm that abortion does to women, she eventually got out of the abortion business. Here's what she says about how they used clever marketing to get women back in for more abortions and more money:

I began to work more with organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NAF on certain projects. I was issuing birth control pills after an abortion, and this is where I learned the real business and the real work of the abortion industry.

I would be able to counsel a woman and say, "Alright, we don't want you to have to go through this procedure again. We want to get you started on birth control pills. We'll give you your first packet free." We could do this because the pharmaceutical companies gave it to us free. It's good marketing. So we could distribute one pack free and write a prescription for five months worth. Everybody makes out.

If the birth control pill doesn't work for you this time, it may be that it's a little too strong. But don't worry, come on back because there's one that's a little lower dose.

Now the pharmaceutical companies and Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry were not stupid. They knew that the less dose of estrogen in those pills, the more likely it was they were going to fail. But you don't have to worry. We can bring you right back here for another abortion.

What more would it take to prove that PPFA gives biased counsel? A videotape of a PPFA counselor trying to convince a teen to abort by stating that she would have aborted her own teenage pregnancy if she had it to do over? Actually, I found such a video on You Tube after only 10 seconds of looking. A Santa Monica Planned Parenthood employee tells 15 year old that if she could "do it again" regarding her 17 year old son, "I would not continue the pregnancy." That is biased counseling.

Here's another example from a writer at UNC:

To be fair, I decided to try and give Planned Parenthood a chance and call them myself to ask what they would tell a UNC student who was sent to them, looking for “all-choices counseling.” Besides feeding me all the regular lies such as “it’s not a baby, it’s a blob of tissue” (even at 12 weeks), the nurse claimed that abortion poses absolutely no health risks and is infinitely safer than birthing a baby. However, Mika Gissler’s 13-year population study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology shows that the death rate associated with abortion is three times higher than that of childbirth. More importantly, the Planned Parenthood nurse did not mention any option other than abortion once during our conversation. She immediately told me the times I could come in to have the "procedure" done and how much it would cost a student.

As a psychotherapist, I can tell you for a fact that quality counseling requires keeping yourself out of the equation and focusing on the desires and needs of your client. There's a difference between counseling and a sales pitch, which is why a professionally trained therapist is best. I can give you plenty of non-financial reasons why a counselor might push abortion on someone else even without a kick-back. It's called working out your own issues through others (i.e. I'll feel better about my own abortion if others do it too). That is why many clinical psychologists will say that it can be dangerous to do counseling until the therapist has worked through his/her own life issues first.

That being said, rather than stating that PPFA offers biased counseling, I think it would be fair simply to note that "PPFA says it offers unbiased counseling, but it does make money of a woman's choice to abort. CPCs do not make money off a woman's final pregnancy decision." The reader can then draw their own conclusions. Furthermore, it's very important that people understand that these counselors are not licensed mental health professionals, but volunteers or clinic employees.

Photouploaded: Abortions are not so hard to find. When I lived in LA, I called 20 different ob/gyns looking for one that didn't do abortions. They all did, except one or two -- and those were quick to mention that some other doctor in the office would be able do an abortion. And, if fact I have been to a Planned Parenthood clinic before, in Boston. I was pretty surprised when I asked for some brochures and they charged me for them. --User:Monnicat (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Abortions may not be hard to "find" (i.e. there may be many doctors who perform them in urban areas), but they are extremely hard to afford if you don't have insurance. A private abortion is much more expensive, sometimes many times more expensive, than an abortion at a low-cost clinic like Planned Parenthood.

I think it's insane to suggest that the fact that money does not exchange hands in a CPC context should be taken as an indicator of unbiased counseling. The very fact that they refuse to acknowledge one of the choices available is the bias.

I am really not interested to read any more hearsay. If you want to bring valid sources here for discussion, feel free, but stop putting your original research into this and other articles. Photouploaded (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

It has been hard to find a definition of "Pregnancy options counseling" that is not supplied by a pro-life or pro-choice source. The closest thing I found is from the Council on Accreditation. They state that "Organizations that offer counseling on all possible options for the pregnancy (i.e., parenting, adoption or other transfer of custody, and termination) will be considered to provide Pregnancy Options Counseling."

I think that this is fair, the concern I have is the next line, that clearly refers to organizations that offer something else, such as adoption agencies or some churches.

"Organizations that offer counseling only on parenting and adoption or other transfer of custody (i.e., not on termination) will be considered to provide Birth Options Counseling."

I am concerned that CPC that offer Pregnancy Options Counseling will be said to actually offer Birth Options Counseling. The fact is that all CPCs do provide information about abortion and discuss the abortion option with the client. (What they don't do is give women a list of abortion clinics.) Comments?--User:Monnicat (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without a citation, your concern does not belong in the article. If we have a source that says CPCs are different from "Pregnancy Option Counseling" then that basically settles it. Without another source, we cannot try to present CPCs' form of counseling as anything different. Keep in mind what I said above. Please try hard to avoid editing articles to insert your own personal views. We can only report on what the sources say. That said, I don't mean to discourage you. I really appreciate you taking the time to search for sources. That is a very good first step. That said, I think the former two sentence paragraph is fine. I believe it is worth mentioning CPCs somewhere in this article, I think qualifying their form of counseling as "controversial" works in this context, and mentioning their critics is good. I think one more sentence perhaps from a more sympathetic source would wrap up that paragraph. Something like, "CPCs are praised by X because of Y". -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I was not suggesting that my concern be part of the final article, rather just thinking out loud that there might be room for confusion. All the major CPC providers clearly state that they provide counseling on all options (which we can easily reference), which places them squarely under agencies offering Pregnancy Options Counseling.--User:Monnicat (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That is nonsense. CPCs clearly attempt to steer women away from abortion. "Providing counseling on all options" means presenting the options and helping the woman make the best choice for her, not "presenting two of the options, vilifying the third, and refusing to help the woman access the third if that is what she chooses". Photouploaded (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

CPC's offer counseling on all options. Sure, they hope that women will choose life, but they support the woman no matter what her choice. They present what they feel is true and accurate information. They exist to provide "abortion alternatives"-- practical help and support to give birth if the woman so chooses. According to Optionline:

Care Net and Heartbeat International are faith-based organizations that promote women's reproductive health by ensuring access to accurate information about all pregnancy options and the provision of positive alternatives to abortion. (emphasis mine)

and Optionline's Committment to Care:

We do not offer, recommend or refer for abortions or abortifacients, but we are committed to offering accurate information about abortion procedures and risks. All of our advertising and communications are truthful and honest and accurately describe the services we offer. (emphases mine)

I think I have made my case and backed it up with sources. Your assertions are POV. --User:Monnicat (talk) 7:30 pm, 16 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as you said "Of course Planned Parenthood claims to give "unbiased" counseling," I can say "Of course CPCs claim to give "unbiased" counseling". I mean, if you can cite anecdotal evidence from a blogging UNC student that PP is biased, surely we can cite a University of Maryland student that says CPCs didn't want to discuss abortion, and used scared tactics etc.[1] But this shouldn't be about us determining who is unbiased, and citing non-notable, anecdotal evidence. The point remains that, forgetting the allegations of bias on both sides for the time being, that CPCs admittedly encourage "the provision of positive alternatives to abortion" and therefore provide a different form of options counseling. A "guided" form, if you will (that is, taken that premise pregnancy options counseling should be supportive and non-directive). I found an interesting, clearly scholarly source from Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health Volume 49, Issue 3, May-June 2004, Pages 235-242 PMID 15134677 doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2004.01.002 "Options counseling: techniques for caring for women with unintended pregnancies". The article does not discuss bias at all, but does describe an ideal form of counseling, cites other sources that we should probably look into, and makes the interesting statement that pregnancy options counseling should also be contrasted with abortion counseling, a type of counseling that "is provided to women who have already decided not to continue their pregnancies". Anyway, I will continue my research and see what I come up with.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Please propose any specific changes you would like to see made to this article, in this section. Photouploaded (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have placed an "External link" to:

Adoption scholarships foundation

into the article. This is a valid consideration, but should be balanced by other External Links of a competing nature, which I will attempt to search out now. Simesa (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we ask that this article be semi-protected and the {{controversial}} banner be placed on this Talk page? Simesa (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to place the banner, but semi-protection is reserved for articles actively undergoing vandalism, which this article is not. Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection has more information. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link because it doesn't seem to meet WP:EL. While it is an example of an organization that provides perhaps an "option" for a woman in a crisis pregnancy, it doesn't really give encyclopedic content regarding the topic of pregnancy options counseling, and the organization doesn't seem to meet notability standards. Also, attempts to insert the same external link on multiple articles can run across as WP:SPAM. Wikipedia should NOT be the place to help women in crisis pregnancies. We should only give an encyclopedic, neutral overview of the topic (not offer advice or otherwise lead readers). Hope this explains why I removed the link, in good faith. Hopefully, no hard feelings.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point; I was attempting to "find a home" for how to address what I perceived as a shortcoming in a thorough discussion. However, I think text just proposed for Abortion might be the best place to start (although I foresee a role to be played here at some point in the future as well). I do apologize for attempting a fix in several places at once. Simesa (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Abortion

I just posted a note in Abortion that this article is currently not mentioned there at all. I can't even see a section where it would logically be mentioned. Simesa (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also not in Abortion debate. Simesa (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I placed a note in Talk:Abortion and a wikilink into See Also in Abortion debate. Simesa (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"critics say there is a not-so-subtle push in many cases toward abortion"

Notice anything strange about this article? How can an article about a type of service give no indication of who provides that service? "Pregnancy options" counseling is what abortion providers most often call the pre-abortion counseling services that they offer. The fact that this article gives no hint of that is like an elephant in the living room that everybody sees but pretends isn't there. The article obviously should mention it, but currently does not.

Question: Is "pregnancy options" counseling offered by anyone other than abortion providers and their affiliates?

The article also does not currently mention the fact that "pregnancy options" counseling, in practice, often encourages abortion. Here's an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that makes the point well:

When clients come in with unwanted pregnancies, they hear about all options, including keeping the baby and giving it up for adoption. But critics say there is a not-so-subtle push in many cases toward abortion.

"You have a choice," a brochure available in the Austin clinic advises pregnant teenagers.

The bright red flyer urges them to consider how raising a child would hurt their social lives and crimp their freedom. "Do what's right for you," it urges.

The cartoon on the cover shows a howling infant.

Note that the Austin Planned Parenthood (which that Chronicle article discusses) does call their counseling (which not-so-subtly encourages abortion) "pregnancy options" counseling.[2]

In fact, Planned Parenthood's counseling services so effectively encourage abortion that, on average, they performed 180 abortions in the United States for every adoption referral that they did, the last year that they released such figures.[3]

This Wikipedia article should mention the facts that "pregnancy options" counseling is most commonly (or exclusively?) offered by abortion providers and their affiliates, and that it very often encourages abortion. NCdave (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, I see the point that you make. I fear, however, that we are moving into the territory of "original research." If Planned Parenthood refers women for abortions 180 times for each adoption referral they give, is this more or less than the overall, national average of abortion to adoption referrals? Do you have secondary, non-aligned sources to back up the claim that it is more than the national average? Is this relevant to the POC page or the Planned Parenthood page?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This criticism is very American-centric. In Australia, government certified non-directive pregnancy support counselling cannot be performed by abortion providers. Additionally, I think there is a big difference between "pregnancy option counseling" which someone who faces a "crisis" pregnancy may seek out and the "counseling" services provided by various abortion providers in the United States. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood uses the term "pregnancy option counseling" to refer to something that may or may not actually qualify as such. But even ignoring that, NCdave has utilized a fallacious line of reasoning. Just because "X" number of women had abortions at Planned Parenthood vs. "Y" number of adoption referrals does not mean that Planned Parenthood counseled all "X+Y" women (and thereby perhaps has a hypothetical bias towards abortion). This rational assumes that a) every woman going into the clinics are counseled and b) every woman is completely undecided when they contact Planned Parenthood (neglecting that clearly many of the women who contact Planned Parenthood's clinic service are arranging appointments to get abortions, not arranging "pregnancy options counseling" sessions). That said, there has been valid and notable criticism of the counseling services provided at some Planned Parenthood, and we should mention that some Planned Parenthood clinics use the term "pregnancy options counseling" even though some sources question the validity of some clinics' counseling services. But I think Planned Parenthood should not be the focus of this article by any means. I have been slowly compiling research for this article (i.e. that info on Australia). Here are some helpful links I've found so far [4], [5], [6], and [7].-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I'm impressed. I know we've had some differences of opinion, but I must say that those first two links you've found are truly excellent! I am also grateful for the very interesting information about Australian law, which I didn't know. I agree that it belongs in the article.

The third link, familyplanning.org, is not so good. It seems to be closely connected to SE Pennsylvania abortion providers. For instance, they have a prominent list of links to abortion clinics (which they euphemistically call just "clinics"), and to a "choice hotline" (which has its roots in the PA Abortion Rights Association), yet they have no links to adoption agencies. That is rather obviously not a balanced source.

However, the first link you provided is a good model for what we can hope this Wikipedia article could become. It is very informative, and it is, for the most part, quite balanced. However I think their assertion that "Pregnancy options counseling should be non-directive, neither encouraging nor discouraging any particular final choice" is a POV assertion, which is dismissive of the value of the unborn child. Still, on the whole, the page is very good.

W/r/t my fallacious reasoning, I agree that Planned Parenthood's abortion customers might not necessarily be a strict subset of their counseling customers. If they do not counsel all their customers, then that would increase the ratio of abortions to adoption referrals. (Conversely, some of their counseling customers might elect to get an abortion at someplace other than Planned Parenthood, which would reduce the ratio of abortions to adoption referrals.)

However, I think the fallacy is more hypothetical than real. The 180-to-1 ratio is so extraordinarily high that unless they counsel almost none of their customers the conclusion would still seem to follow. E.g., even if they counsel only 10% of their abortion customers, that still means that the result of that counseling is at least 18 abortions for every one adoption referral.

Also, does anyone here know whether "pregnancy options" counseling is done in the USA (and called that) by anyone other than abortion providers and their affiliates? NCdave (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"The 180-to-1 ratio is so extraordinarily high"... where are you sources for this claim?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess that nobody knows of any "pregnancy options" counseling done in the USA (and called that) by anyone other than abortion providers and their affiliates? NCdave (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been away from this awhile, but it's pretty disappointing to see that there is no progress here, or actually that the situation has gone backwards because some people are not tolerating opposing viewpoints. I don't see why we don't include some external links (beyond policy positions) about Options Counseling, since no one here can agree on what it is supposed to be anyway. Pregnancy resource centers that focus on abortion-alternatives (CPCs) also conduct "Pregnancy Options Counseling" as well as abortion providers. I actually like the link to the Family Planning Counsel (albeit biased) and would also add ContraceptInfo's Option Counseling page. People, try not to feel too threatened if some links don't match your ideology. Let's make this as expansive as possible. Monnica Williams (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Article has problems

Part of the problem with this article is obviously a terminology issue: "pregnancy options counseling" is used for counseling by social workers at family planning clinics, counseling by doctors in their offices, and sometimes for counseling by non-professionals at crisis pregnancy centers!

However, that isn't what's at fault for the fact that the text just doesn't cite any sources. Sources exist that give guidance on pregnancy options counseling both for social workers at clinics and for doctors - why isn't any of this cited?

My real question, though (which I need to ask before overhauling the article myself), is: Should we have a separate section for each kind of "pregnancy options counseling"? Are they appreciably different, or can the differences be addressed in the first sentence or two by indicating that the service is provided either at X location by Y or at W location by Z?

-- Roscelese (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea Proposal

We would like to expand on the options that these women have regarding their pregnancy. We want to expand on the ideas of parenting, abortion, and adoption. We will discuss the aspects of each option and expand on each option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexisdupuy (talk • contribs) 04:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)