Talk:United States anti-abortion movement

CompassCare and Jane's Revenge

Since my edit was reverted under the rationale that the image did not match with the content of the section, I'm discussing this here. I actually took the picture of the police on sight of the Eggerstville, NY-based pro-life and anti-abortion medical center CompassCare, on the day an arson attack from a pro-choice group took place there. I added the photo because I thought the section discussed all abortion-related violence, including against anti-abortion groups and individuals, by the fact that one of the paragraphs is about the murder of Jim Pouillon. Additionally, there's no "pro-choice violence" article that's similar to anti-abortion violence, and Jane's Revenge, who did the CompassCare attack plus another Wisconsin pro-life center weeks ago, has been getting both local and national coverage recently. Unfortunately, some of the articles have been from right-wing propaganda outlets fear-mongering about the "radical left" (TheBlaze, National Review, Washington Times, Fox News, NYPost). However, reputable local outlets like WIVB, WBAL, WKBW, and the Buffalo News have discussed the incident, and Jane's Revenge has also been covered for their activities by the Guardian, ABP Live, Socialist Alternative, MyNorthwest, WSAW, PBS Wisconsin, Christian Post, and San Diego Union Tribune. With that mind, if there's an article or section about violence and threats by abortion activists that I could add the image to, I'd appreciate the info. As a libertarian-identifying pro-abortion individual, I definitely know only an anti-abortion violence article exists because there's far more reliable evidence for those incidents, but that does not mean pro-abortion violence does not happen. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My comment would be that this picture would be WP:UNDUE representation of this violence, since, as the Guardian source says: "An attack on an anti-abortion office is a relative rarity compared with attacks on abortion clinics and providers. In 2019, the Guardian reported on an “alarming escalation” in picketing, vandalism and trespassing by anti-abortion activists at medical facilities. Arson, bombings, murders and acid attacks were among more than 300 acts of extreme violence recorded by the Rand Corporation between 1973 and 2003, and in one of the most heinous incidents, in 2009, Dr George Tiller, a Kansas abortion provider, was shot dead in a church in Wichita." So, we'd need some large number of pictures of anti-abortion violence or some other way to not skew the reader's perception in a direction opposite the facts/data. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"An attack on an anti-abortion office is a relative rarity" Rare, but still occurring. Perhaps not notable enough for a solo article on the topic, but we could mention it with the other escalating threats associated with the ridiculous debate about abortions in the United States. Leave it to Americans to resort to lethal violence over a medical issue. Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Avatar317. Unless there's extensive coverage by reliable secondary sources, it doesn't belong in the article, per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

FALSEBALANCE would be if we discussed the pro-abortion violence at the same length as the other violence, or half as much. It could just be a paragraph, where it would acknowledge that pro-abortion violence is definitely rare in comparison to anti-abortion violence, ya know. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 23:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Right now the section on violence has 6 sentences about violence by anti-abortion extremists and 1 sentence about violence directed against an anti-abortion protester. That ratio of 1 to 6 is already far, far higher than the ratio of pro-abortion-rights violence to anti-abortion violence. NightHeron (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

1) For now, this seems to be two isolated small events, and as such, I would say that they don't deserve mention, because in relation to 300+ events: "Arson, bombings, murders and acid attacks were among more than 300 acts of extreme violence recorded by the Rand Corporation between 1973 and 2003" these two are less than 1%.

2) If this type of activity continues or increases (say 10x), then I would support sub-headers in the "Violence" section of "Violence against abortion providers" and "Violence against abortion opponents", with one sentence talking about the violence against opponents, but including the Rand Corp 300+ statement to put it in perspective. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Republican party headquarters in Raleigh, NC vandalized yesterday. Arizona State House vandalized two days ago. Someone was arrested for attempting to assassinate a US Supreme Court Justice. This, plus the two mentioned above, seem to have been within a month. Yeah, it's not 300 - but that's 300 over 40 years. 2600:6C5E:167F:F8D5:BD8C:E81C:25E3:8449 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

False balance

Under "controversies over terminology" The anti-abortion movement's usage of "pro-life" is presented as a "both sides" issue, when that's objectively not the case. The pro-choice movement is in favor of a woman's right to choose, while the anti-abortion movement is opposed to it on religious grounds. On the other hand, the "pro-life" label is deceptive because it refers specifically to being anti-abortion, but not opposition to the death sentence, oppositon to war, or pro-environmentalism, all of which would be more accurately called pro-life, than how the term is used in reality. On the other hand, there's nothing anti-life in abortion rights. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have sources that say this? In any case, the anti-abortion movement is not against all choices, only the choice to end a pregnancy. The terminology issue was discussed in an RfC in 2018, and a consensus of editors agreed that reliable sources say that both terms pro-choice and pro-life are political spin terms that do not neutrally reflect what the controversy is about. NightHeron (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources for what? I'm specifically talking about trimming content from an already existing section, that already has citations. This article is specifically about the anti-abortion movement and their usage of political labels, so a tacked on tangent about how "both sides do it" is false balance. Also, that was in 2018. The dobbs ruling and subsequent abortion bans, along with their horrendous consequences require us to reevaluate how we view the anti-abortion movement (or should it now be called "pro forced birth movement"?). even if this ever was a two-sided issue, that is no longer the case. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources for considering "pro-choice" to be a neutral description rather than a political spin term.

BTW, many abortion rights advocates dislike the term "pro-choice" for several reasons: (1) they're not in favor of choice on other big issues, such as whether or not to obey masking and vaccination mandates during a pandemic; (2) they're not opposed to 3rd-trimester restrictions on the choice to have an abortion (that is, requiring a medical need for it); (3) it avoids mentioning the issue of abortion and in that way accepts the stigmatization of that word; (4) it avoids the word rights; (5) it has a self-indulgent connotation that reflects the priorities of privileged people rather than a pragmatic priority related to women's basic right to health, which is (or should be) the central concern, especially for the poor and people of color.

On the question of trimming the section, I agree with you that it should be trimmed. I'd favor removing the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, which are out-of-date and in the wrong place (they'd belong, if anywhere, in the "popular opinion" section, but I think they can be dropped). NightHeron (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

None of those matter because this article is about the Anti-abortion movement, and not anything else. Maybe other parts can be trimmed, but references to the pro-choice movement are undue in this article. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

most commonly vs also

Per BRD, I changed the (also called) to (most commonly called). This was because anti abortion movements are most commonly called pro life. A quick ngrams or google trends search shows this is true. Pro life is about 2x most common than anti abortion. Yet, my edit was reverted by @NightHeron. If they could explain why as "was better before" is not a very good explanation, that would be great. PalauanReich (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@NightHeron has reverted my edit again, violating policy. PalauanReich (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC):

I knew that the longstanding 1RR policy on abortion-related articles was removed by ArbCom in September 2020 (see [1]), but I was not aware that 1RR had recently been put back. I apologize for the 2nd RR. NightHeron (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you could explain why you are ignoring the WP:BRD cycle and instead trying to edit-war in an unsourced claim, that would be even better than great. A claim of "more commonly called" begs a "by whom?" response. A Google ngram check doesn't even find the existence of the term "right-to-life movement", despite your claims of commonness. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler How am I ignoring BRD. I am talking about pro life. If you actually checked pro life vs anti abortion, you would clearly see what I mean. I would say NightHeron is edit warring by ignoring the big notice at the top that says "only 1 revert". PalauanReich (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

" To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit[...]" sayeth WP:BRD. And your claim about what you truly mean does not match with the edit you did, which included the right-to-life phrase. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The "pro-life" term is commonly used only by adherents of the anti-abortion movement, and it's a political spin term. This has been discussed many times on Wikipedia, for example, when both the title of this article was changed from "pro-life movements" to "anti-abortion movements" and when the title of the article on the other side was changed from "pro-choice movements" to "abortion rights movements". The purpose in both cases was to comply with WP:NPOV and remove political spin terminology from the title.

WP:BRD requires you to get a consensus on the talk-page before restoring a disputed edit. NightHeron (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The article titles are appropriately NPOV but since we mention the 'political spin' names anyway I see no reason why we can't acknowledge that at least one of them is more common than the name we use. I suggest The United States anti-abortion movement (most commonly called the pro-life movement; also the right-to-life movement). And analogous changes at United States abortion-rights movement. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

First, because it hasn't been shown that that's the more common name, although of course it's the common name among anti-abortion activists. Second, because it slyly suggests that the name in the article title isn't really the right one. NightHeron (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Ngrams shows it. I suspect nearly everyone familiar with U.S. politics would agree it is more common, regardless of their own views on the issue. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't have a usable source for "more commonly" (using Ngrams or Ghits is a form of OR), much less "most commonly". And the relative commonality of the term is not of such import that we need put it in the first sentence of the article without a source. "Also" serves the purpose of letting the reader know "here's other terms that may have landed you on this page; they mean the same thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Come on now, you linked Ngrams above to show that "right-to-life movement" is not common, and now suddenly it's OR. Ngrams is linked at WP:TITLE, and it's mentioned as possible evidence for a proposed move at WP:RSPM. How else would we determine the most common name? –CWenger (^ • @) 00:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR is a restriction on article content, not on discussions. We use them in discussions of titles to use because it's a decision we have to make and it's one of the best tools to use... but that's not the same as making the claim in Wikipedia voice that something is the most common, which would require non-OR sourcing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:SKYISBLUE territory, in my opinion. Anybody who pays attention to U.S. politics can see that the most common terms are "pro-choice" and "pro-life". There is probably no source saying this because it's patently obvious. For the same reason, we also don't have a source explaining that "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" are actually the same thing. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's that obvious to all, then we don't need to say it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

From WP:TITLE: "the ideal article title precisely (my bolding) identifies the subject;" - The current choice of terms is more ACCURATE, despite the branding of what the groups want to call themselves: The term "pro-life" is a marketing device and does not reflect the sole focus of the movement, which is opposition to abortion; see consistent life ethic, these people are a SUBSET of the anti-abortion folks. Likewise, "pro-choice" isn't support for pluralistic elections systems contrasting communist states. And you'd need sources other than your own web survey to say which terms are most common, per WP:OR.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is debating the article title here... We're debating how to describe another name for the movement which is already given in the content of the article. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

[Repeat my last sentence] you'd need sources other than your own web survey to say which terms are most common, per WP:OR. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)