Talk:Heartbeat International

message: I am just inviting an RfC on this change, since two individual users have reverted my attempt to remove information I feel is about CPCs in general and not about HBI, both positive and negative ("they provide baby items", but also "they are tricky and trying to restrict choices!", etc). Would welcome uninterested parties. AMightierHeart (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked Cosmopolitan article (that should probably be turned into a proper reference) talks specifically about HI and the Heartbeat conference. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I explained poorly, I don't dispute the article writes it about HBI, just that the fact HBI provides baby items, or discourages women from abortion is not really encyclopaedic because that's essentially the definition of a CPC. So it's like saying "Sea Shepherd is an NGO that tries to save whales. Because they are an NGO, this means that they are not officially recognised by the US government, or the government of Uganda, but they try to do their best to do what they believe in and they have like-minded people helping themsomething". Including it in the specific encyclopaedic entry, and in the words of the opponent not the subject, of the article framed as the neutral description is misleading. A quoted criticism is valid, but simply "describing" a group in the words of its opponents is disingenuous. AMightierHeart (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You look at this article and you worry that we're describing HBI in its opponents' language too much and that our portrayal is too unfavorable?? :o –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm proposing to only include encyclopaedic information from the source, not its operating hours, nor what it does insofar that every other group of the same stripe does the same...same as we don't state that Wal-Mart sells telephones, combs, pet food and clothing, we just say it is "a department store" and leave the details in that article. AMightierHeart (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on content

message: This article in the status quo obviously violates Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality.
"Heartbeat International teaches its affiliated members to make their advertising look as though they are full-service clinics that provide referrals for birth control or abortion. Staff are also trained on how to discourage pregnant women from accessing abortion, and how to discourage young women from using emergency contraception, birth control pills, or IUDs. Heartbeat staff are also encouraged to create two websites, one that has an explicitly Christian message, and one that looks like Planned Parenthood."
The above is unsourced, conjecture, contrary to what Heartbeat's stated purposes are, and until proven otherwise should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revfulop1994 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering those statements are specifically sourced, that makes me think that the rest of your sentence is invalid as well. If you have objections, make them properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Some of them very clearly, some of them implied. Yes, they are.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The following language included is deceptive: 
Heartbeat International teaches its affiliated members to make their advertising look as though they are full-service clinics that provide referrals for birth control or abortion. 
This should be changed to read: Heartbeat International affiliated centers agree to Our Commitment of Care and Competence in which they promise that "All of our advertising and communication are truthful and honest and accurately describe the services we offer." https://www.heartbeatinternational.org/about-us/commitment-of-care Many pregnancy centers provide limited medical services such as ultrasound and STI testing and therefore are considered pregnancy help medical clinics. 
Staff are also trained on how to discourage pregnant women from accessing abortion, and how to discourage young women from using emergency contraception, birth control pills, or IUDs.
This should be changed to read: Heartbeat International affiliated centers agree to Our Commitment of Care and Competence stating "We do not offer, recommend or refer for abortions or abortifacients, but are committed to offering accurate information about abortion procedures and risks." https://www.heartbeatinternational.org/about-us/commitment-of-care Some birth control has been proven to cause abortions, therefore, pregnancy centers do not promote them. https://aaplog.org/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/
Heartbeat staff are also encouraged to create two websites, one that has an explicitly Christian message, and one that looks like Planned Parenthood.
This should read: Heartbeat International affiliates are encouraged to created two websites, one that speaks to donors and one that speaks to clients.
Many pregnancy centers have the ultimate goal of converting women through a born-again experience to "save the mother, save the baby.
This should read: Pregnancy centers exists all over the world to meet the needs of their community and provide compassionate support in a time of need. Heartbeat International does not determine the mission of the individual centers, but rather provides training and resources for all pregnancy centers. All Heartbeat International affiliates must adhere to Our Commitment of Care and Competence. https://www.heartbeatinternational.org/about-us/commitment-of-care
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrudden (talk • contribs) 
===Reply 02-OCT-2018===
----
The Cosmopolitan piece appears to have supplemented their own original reporting with findings from NARAL. One specific report published by NARAL and written by Lisa McIntire contains many elements which are also found in the Cosmopolitan article—namely, the "dual websites" claim and the "discourage young women" claim. In turn, the work that McIntire produced is based on research informed through the publications of approximately 95 other sources. In light of this, if the McIntire/Cosmo claims in the WP article are to be refuted and replaced with the ones you've suggested (which originate only from the Crisis network itself) I would recommend greatly expanding your search elsewhere in order to locate independent references which verify these statements.  When ready to proceed with these references, kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience.
Regards,  Spintendo  16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Some proposed changes

message: ----
The Cosmopolitan piece appears to have supplemented their own original reporting with findings from NARAL. One specific report published by NARAL and written by Lisa McIntire contains many elements which are also found in the Cosmopolitan article—namely, the "dual websites" claim and the "discourage young women" claim. In turn, the work that McIntire produced is based on research informed through the publications of approximately 95 other sources. In light of this, if the McIntire/Cosmo claims in the WP article are to be refuted and replaced with the ones you've suggested (which originate only from the Crisis network itself) I would recommend greatly expanding your search elsewhere in order to locate independent references which verify these statements.  When ready to proceed with these references, kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience.
Regards,  Spintendo  16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 02-OCT-2018

message: The Charlotte Lozier Institute just released in September a full report on the effectiveness of Pregnancy Center Services. Heartbeat International's affiliates and services are mentioned numerous times throughout the document discussing the effectiveness of the centers and the cost-savings to taxpayers by their existence. 
Key findings include: 
- In 2017, pregnancy centers provided almost 2,000,000 people with free services, with estimated community cost savings of at least $161 million annually.
- 2,752 center locations nationwide provide vital services including medical services, parenting programs, and sexual risk avoidance education.
- More than seven in 10 locations offer free ultrasounds (up 24 percent since 2010).
- 400,100 hours of free services were contributed by credentialed nurse sonographers and registered diagnostic medical sonographers in 2017.
- 100 mobile units with ultrasound are on the road to bring services to women out in the community.
- 30,000 contacts per month reach Heartbeat International’s Option Line hotline and email/chat lines.
- 67,400 volunteers serve pregnancy centers, including an estimated 7,500 medical professionals who freely give of their time and skills.
- Centers carried out 679,600 free pregnancy tests in 2017.
- 295,900 moms and dads attended parenting and prenatal education courses.
- 24,100 after-abortion support clients were seen in 2017 (services include support, counseling, and referral to professional help when appropriate for both women and men).
- More than 1 million students attended community-based sexual risk avoidance education presentations in 2017.
:Some statistics are useful (not in this article unless they're HBI specifically), but we're obviously not going to present them in this promotional manner. For instance, your second bullet point would just be an updated number of centers, not "provide vital services." On the other hand, I don't think "2 million people provided with free services" is a particularly useful tidbit in light of the generally accepted fact that a non-zero percentage of these "services" are a medical misinformation spiel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Some proposed new citations

message: To Avatar317 and others: If our article was longer and more detailed, then your last two sentences would probably be fine (though, if we are going to call openDemocracy's operatives "reporters", it would be more honest to call them "feminist reporters", i.e., militantly pro-choice reporters, which openDemocracy honestly does in its article). But since ours is now a very brief article, I think my closing sentence is better. Otherwise in an article of nine or ten lines about a third of them are devoted to the openDemocracy material . Too much weight. More broadly in our short article, too much emphasis on the same kinds of criticism of HI and CPC's (medical misinformation, deceptive advertising) and not enough on things such as how effective HI centers are in dissuading women from abortion (which they see as their primary purpose) and what they do in the way of follow-up care for the women they deal with. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: openDemocracy material