Talk:Mexico City policy

message: Hi! I am a student editor and I am considering this article as the one I will edit and expand this semester for my class. I see a lot of potential to add more up-to-date information, especially in the "impact" section with regards to recent changes to this policy in the  administration. For more information please see my user page! Nicolekoonce (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans to edit article 

message: The article states initially: "Called the "global gag rule" by opponents"
and then throughout the article it's referred to as the "gag rule". So clearly either the term "gag rule" is used by more than just the opponents OR there's a neutral point of view issue with this article.
: I fixed that.  It took about ten seconds. Dlabtot 01:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of View? 

message: The article said "Other reproductive health organizations including the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia, the Family Planning Association of Kenya and the Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia likewise refused changes to match American policies, with even greater funding cuts as a result."  I removed Kenya from the list since globalgagrule.org said "that [in 1984]] FPAK then turns to USAID/Kenya for direct assistance and reluctantly agrees to the terms of the gag rule."  Other things should probably be checked.--Bkwillwm 17:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Innaccuracy?

message: Is this a WP:reliable source? It doesn't appear to be.  Dlabtot 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it can only be used as a source for a sentence like "Pro-lifers have argued that (...)" or something like that. Revolutionaryluddite 02:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:reliable sources states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dlabtot 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right now, the assertions by both critics and supporters of the policy are only sourced to first-party websites. It's my understanding that WP policy on Op-Eds, activist magazines, interest group periodicals, and so on says they can function as reliable sources under the limited condition that the article uses X's website for "X argues Y" and not for "Y is true" with X's website as a source. I may be wrong about this, I don't know. Revolutionaryluddite 03:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  covenantnews.com 

message: I think that the paragraph should be removed in its entirety. It's a purely fictional and non-realistic show that has very little relevance in an article about a real-life policy. Revolutionaryluddite 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry is relevant to informing the reader of the notability of the policy as well as to the controversies surrounding the policy. Dlabtot 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the paragraph. The notability and importance of the policy is already stated in the aricle. The Boston Legal reference does not involve actual facts. In the same vein, should the main article on the Eiffel Tower mention that the Americans blew it up? Revolutionaryluddite 03:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I knew that you removed that paragraph before I made that previous comment. I disagree with your removal of that paragraph for the reasons that I already stated.  Rather than just revert, I figured I'd just make it clear that no consensus has been reached in this matter. Dlabtot 03:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't feel that strongly about it. I would be okay with a one-sentence snippet on the episode. Revolutionaryluddite 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boston Legal]] paragraph 

message: This policy forced NGOs to quickly decide whether to forego often substantial funding from USAID or change their operations. The London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) refused to change their stance and lost more than 20% of its funding. Other reproductive health organizations including the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia and the Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia likewise refused changes to match U.S. policies, with even greater funding cuts as a result.[citation needed] Romanian and Colombian NGOs were among those that relented, deciding they could not give up US aid.
"Quickly decide"? What rushed them? Also, the policy did not "force" anything; it stipulated that US taxpayer dollars would not be used to perform or promote abortions.  Usage of the terms "refused" and "relented" is very POV. Also, what did these NGOs do that makes them far more notable than the other health agencies that accepted the policy? The blanket term "reproductive health organizations" is confusing. Did these groups routinely perform elective abortions? If so, then the fact that the policy cut off their funding is not notable-- that's what the policy intended to do. I think that the entire paragraph should be removed. Revolutionaryluddite 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Revolutionaryluddite 03:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The section has be readded, again, without sourcing and with slanted wording. Revolutionaryluddite 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NGOs 

message: I have moved some of the information on the background of the Mexico City Policy that was formerly located in the introduction to the "History of the policy" section, where I believe it is a better fit, in order to improve the cohesion and flow of the article. I have also created a "Scope of the policy" section in which the policy's effect can be described in greater detail. The policy is active, I believe, so I edited this description to be in present tense.-Severa 07:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current revision looks better. The only problem I see is that a source is still needed to confirm Alan Keyes' involvement in drafting the policy. Revolutionaryluddite 17:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed that the sentence about Keyes was uncited. I did a bit of searching and the only source I could find which made reference to Keyes' involvement in creating the Mexico City Policy was this interview. However, it's published on the Renew America web site that is Keyes' homepage, so an independent confirmation would be helpful. I'll add an uncited tag for the time being. -Severa (!!!) 23:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The League of Conservation Voters, no friend of Keyes in any sense, has stated that "During the Reagan administration, Keyes was a U.S.delegate to the 1984 World Population Conference in Mexico City." Revolutionaryluddite 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This confirms half of the information, that Keyes was a U.S. delegate, but not the part about him having negotiated the language of the policy. I've searched but I haven't been able to find any other references to Keyes' involvement. I think the  tag should simply stay in place for now. -Severa (!!!) 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: I am a little bit confused by the intended meaning of the first sentence in the following quote, and, because it appears that two sentences have been garbled into one, I have been unable to produce a modified version which I feel is faithful to the meaning that the original author was trying to convey.
: "Opponents of the Mexico City Policy refer to it as the 'global gag rule', and argue that it keeps U.S. foreign aid from helping non-governmental organizations from distributing USAID-donated condoms and birth control [out-of-place bit bolded]. This has resulted in an increase in unwanted pregnancies, and thus an increase in the rate of abortion."
This is what I interpret the sentence as meaning. I would appreciate it if other editors would let me know if they believe my intepretation is correct.
:"Opponents of the Mexico City Policy refer to it as the 'global gag rule', arguing that it has kept U.S. foreign aid from helping non-governmental organizations, and prevented these NGOs from distributing condoms and other forms of contraception donated by USAID.  This, critics say, has resulted in an increase in unwanted pregnancies, and thus an increase in the rate of abortion."
-Severa (!!!) 08:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write the sentence, but I think the original intent was something like "Opponents of the Mexico City Policy refer to it as the 'global gag rule', arguing that it has kept USAID from helping non-governmental organizations with their distribution of condoms and other forms of contraception". Revolutionaryluddite 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at one of the pro-choice references, the section as it reads now is not supported by the reference. The Mexico City Policy does not directly prevent funds from going to groups that hand out birth control. However, the health organizations that disagree with the policy happen to be some of the critical suppliers of birth control in third-world nations. So, indirectly, the policy has lead to a decrease in birth control distribution. Their entire line of arguement seems like a classic red herring to me, but it's one of their main points. Anyways, I think my rewrite (above) makes more sense. Revolutionaryluddite 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source critical of the Mexico City Policy which suggested that, in addition to providing funding, the USAID program also donates birth control supplies to NGOs, and thus becoming ineligible would mean the loss of these donations in addition to the discontinuation of funding. There is now a souce and I've modified the section to reflect what it says. I hope this improves clarity further. -Severa (!!!) 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clearer now. This, it is suggested, negatively impacts the ability of these NGOs to distribute birth control, leading to a downfall in contraceptive use and thus an increase in unintended pregnancies and abortion. This sentence, though, seems somewhat biased. It should say something like "Opponents then argue that the ability of the NGOs to distribute birth control is negatively affected and leads to a downfall in contraceptive use, an increase in unintended pregnancies, and an increase in abortion rates." Revolutionaryluddite 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the sentence to make it clearer that the ones making this assertation were the critics. On the other hand, the cited source provides a clear order to the cause-and-effect relationship it proposes, which is that A (withdrawal of donation of contraceptive items) leads to B (downfall in contraceptive use) leads to C (more unintended pregnancies) leads to D (increase in abortion rate). This is why I structured the sentence with a division between B and C/D ("and thus," now "from there," to hopefully remove the suggestion of conclusivity "thus" can have). I don't think that listing the effects as simply "leads to B, C, and D" would really take into account the order of the argument that's being made. I deliberately tried to mirror the structure of the "They argue that a stipulation in the policy means..." sentence. -Severa (!!!) 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing sentence

message: "It also formed a sizable part of the 2007-2008 High School policy debate topic with almost one half of the teams running a case interacting with this topic."
I've just removed this text from the "References in popular culture" section for a few reasons: 1. It lacks citation of any sort; 2. It lacks anything to indicate what it actually refers to. It's not wiki-linked anywhere, and it's vague enough that I'm not sure if Policy debate is the right referent. Even if it is, that article doesn't seem to refer to a particular organization or program. 3. Sad as it may be, I'm not sure how notable high school policy debates are, compared to an evening show on a broadcast network. 98.212.137.224 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear, uncited pop-culture reference 

message: I guess the "not" in the following sentence should not be there, or did I misunderstand something?
"Even if these organizations support the [Mexico] policy itself, it is illegal for them not to inform a woman seeking an abortion of her rights, and/or refer her to a facility where she may have an abortion." (bold by myself)
This policy is totally against abortion, so wouldn't it make more sense if it was actually illegal for the organization receiving US funding to tell the women in question that if they go "over there" they will get their abortion from another organization that is funded, say, by the Belgian taxpayer. 
Because the way it is written now it would be illegal for the organization receiving US funding not to inform the woman where she could get an abortion ("You can't get it here because of the Mexico policy, but you can get it over there").--Soylentyellow (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: May be there's a "not" too many?

message: In Rome, archbishop Rino Fisichella has stated that he (and the Church) is against the move to rescind the policy , although it's not clear whether it is entirely relevant to mention that in the article right now. ADM (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican view

message: Shouldn't the source on the policy being rescinded be the actual memoranda rescinding it, instead of the commentary afterwards?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationPlanning/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.10.114 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference source on rescinding the policy?? 

message: If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That two-year-old discussion has now been archived here.  It discusses the WP:NPOV use of the phrase "Mother" vs. "Pregnant woman" in articles on abortion, and is not particularly relevant to this article which currently contains neither. -- 182.232.144.48 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues

message: The "History of the policy" section currently states:
:In September 2007, Barbara Boxer, a Senator from California, created an amendment designed to lift the funding conditions put in place by the Mexico City Policy. It passed by a vote of 53-41. President Bush promised to veto any legislation which would eliminate the Mexico City Policy.
What was the fate of this amendment?  Was it killed in the house, or did it reach the president's desk and get vetoed? -- 182.232.144.48 (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of Boxer amendment 

message: I understand the reason for saying "The Mexico City Policy... was an intermittent... policy," but I think that's premature. I've changed it to present tense, with another sentence explaining it hasn't been in effect since January 2009. Given that the policy has been consistently active under Republican administrations and inactive under Democratic ones since its inception, it's a near certainty that the policy will be reinstated at some point. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tense

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mexico City Policy. 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/20130329101241/http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/restrictions.html to http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/restrictions.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080126230722/http://www.pathfind.org:80/site/PageServer?pagename=Advocacy_Resources_Fact_Sheets_Gag_Rule to http://www.pathfind.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Advocacy_Resources_Fact_Sheets_Gag_Rule
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010123-5.html
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) 12:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Mexico City policy. 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/20070831000627/http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Global_Gag_Rule_and_US_HIV_AIDS_Assistance/Summary.shtml to http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Global_Gag_Rule_and_US_HIV_AIDS_Assistance/Summary.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409232811/http://www.sierraclub.org/population/global_gag_rule/ to http://www.sierraclub.org/population/global_gag_rule/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401120121/http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_ggrbush.html to http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_ggrbush.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514081215/http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/070719gagrule.html to http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/070719gagrule.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014121849/http://iepfpd.org/index.asp?ID=373&id_sous_menu=26 to http://www.iepfpd.org/index.asp?ID=373&id_sous_menu=26
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705023236/http://www.nchla.org/factdisplay.asp?ID=20 to http://www.nchla.org/factdisplay.asp?ID=20
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021011957/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQyZTVjMjJhYTk0YzY4OWUyZDgxY2JmOGE1OGI3NzY%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQyZTVjMjJhYTk0YzY4OWUyZDgxY2JmOGE1OGI3NzY%3D
*Added  tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010205/ai_n14365324
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824121135/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL08/united_nations_population_fund_h.htm to http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL08/united_nations_population_fund_h.htm
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) 13:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mexico City policy. 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/20070709172536/http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/international-issues/gag-rule-13105.htm to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/international-issues/gag-rule-13105.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028021950/http://nchla.org/factdisplay.asp?ID=21 to http://www.nchla.org/factdisplay.asp?ID=21
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) 11:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently the article reads:
From 1973 on, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has followed the Mexico City Policy for 17 of the past 32 years
The only time this sentence could possibly have made any sense (and even then it would have been poorly written) would have been in 2005.  Maybe it dates from then; I don't know.  But it needs correcting now.  I will check the source and fix it. Unschool 04:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense nonsentence 

message: the article plagarizes this website:https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/mexico-city-policy-explainer/Goaliepowers (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but on what basis do you say that, ? This copyvio checker shows the similarities of text used. I note that link you supplied was published in January 2019, whereas the content of this page was published well before that. Sometimes lazy people - even journalists - like to copy from Wikipedia. Could this be the case here, do you not think? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is completely plagiarized  

message: Peer-reviewed research on the effects of the policy is highly notable and belongs in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Snooganssnoogans added a sentence to the lead regarding one individual study of the Mexico City policy. I removed that sentence, but left information about the study in the body of the article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&diff=905338770&oldid=904444504). Per MOS:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Furthermore, a lead "should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." The Mexico City policy has been in effect during the Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and  administrations. It has been the subject of debate for decades. What is so significant about this one study that it belongs in the lead? Unless the study has had a significant impact on the policy, or on the debate surrounding it, it does not seem lead-worthy. If this study has had such an impact, surely there should be reliable sources that say so; those sources should be included. If not, the study should stay in the body of the article only. Furthermore, given that the study in question found that the policy was counterproductive in terms of its stated goals, including it in the lead (especially without offering any additional perspectives) raises WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV concerns. SunCrow (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sifted through the existing academic literature on the policy. All of the peer-reviewed literature finds that the policy increases unintended pregnancies and abortions. Research also indicates that the policy adversely affects health. The body now covers four peer-reviewed publications, as well as three editorials by recognized experts in top public health publications. The content should be in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can live with that. SunCrow (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

text:  Snooganssnoogans: I'm making the sentence in the lede about the effects of the policy more tentative because the articles cited do not support the claim.  The sentence currently reads "Research shows that [...] the Mexico City policy has had the inadvertent impact of increasing unintended pregnancies and abortions.".  In contrast, [one of the cited articles](https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/55184/1/MPRA_paper_55184.pdf) says (for example): "Table 7 shows the estimates of the policy’s impact on the share of pregnancies ending in abortion for the full sample and the same subgroups. For the full sample, the coefficient is positive, though not statistically different from zero at a standard level."  The second sentence means that the research in fact found no such effect.  The effects of the policy are an interesting question, and deserve to be in the article, but the sentence as it stands is not correct, so I'm changing it. - 31.127.148.247  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.148.247 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The study literally says "I also find an increase in the use of induced abortion in rural areas, but only for women in the top three wealth quintiles." In other words, the policy induced abortions. Anyway, that's only one of multiple studies cited. If you want to change longstanding language, you need to get consensus for it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The study does indeed literally say that.  It finds that abortion went up in some places and down in others, and found no significant increase overall.  I'm not sure what "inaccurately reading stats" in your summary is supposed to mean.  Could you say what you think "For the full sample, the coefficient is positive, though not statistically different from zero at a standard level" means?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.148.247 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 2019 Lancet study on the effects of the Mexico City policy should be in the lede 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion