Talk:Reproductive Freedom for All

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The previous version of this favored by Meelar is hostile in tone to NARAL. The language was anything but neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.28.21 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FactCheck/Attack Ad[edit]

I have restored the section. I think the whole article is fairly sympathetic. Like any number of advocacy groups, NARAL has been known to play it fast and loose with the facts. While every incident is not notable, this one is current pertaining to politics. If anyone sees the ad and decides to look up NARAL, they should see this information.--Tznkai 14:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see your point. How about we remove it if/when Roberts is confirmed? In a historical sense, it doesn't rise to encyclopedicness, but it could be useful right now. Best, Meelar (talk) 14:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Not a problem. If we kept every lame attack ad every advocacy group ever made we could make a brand new wiki.--Tznkai 14:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the ad is discussed in more detail here. I actually used the same factcheck.org piece you did. You might want to rephrase the bit about "false accusations," as what they said is more misleading than false. He "supported" them, but not about bombing. Enjoy, Dave (talk) 17:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I was using the words that factcheck did actually, but go ahead and change if you wish--Tznkai 17:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'd sort of like there to be more information on NARAL's general work in support of health care for women. State affiliates are often the parent-organizations for a number of smaller organizations, like the Medicaid Matters... meta-organizations, and the Institute for Reproductive Health Access. Any opinions? DivineAna 22:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NARAL logo.png[edit]

Image:NARAL logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wrote out the rationale for fair use at the logo page. Fanra 09:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current version shows pro-abortion bias[edit]

Without directly quoting another and therefore without being able to use that as an excuse, the article says . . . referrals to safe abortion providers in Mexico. There are no safe abortions. The purpose of every abortion is that it be unsafe, that it kill the baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.7.158 (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is obviously anti-abortion. The wording leads me to believe that it is safe for the mother's health, and that the mother does not have to worry about societal scrutiny by attending such clinics. Your comment looks like a flame to me.75.70.247.178 (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The topic will be heating up again. Did you notice? —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NARAL and anti-Catholicism[edit]

There is an interesting essay here by Robert P. Lockwood which claims that NARAL has been at the forefront of negative media sterotypes of Catholics, essentially because the group has been saying since the 1960s that abortion is mainly a Catholic issue and that it has more to do with theology than science. Mentioning its hostile relationship with the Church would certainly make a valuable footnote. [1] ADM (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting essay that basically says that the Catholic Church supported the New Deal of FDR, considering it 'Christian charity' and so could not complain about things like Roe v Wade. [2] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

The article has no pics. Bernard Nathanson is a founder. Pics of founders are always appropriate weight. How could it be undue? – Lionel (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanson was only one of twelve founders and is far less generally known than Friedan; adding Nathanson alone is undue, but there would be no issue if multiple images were added. AV3000 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.– Lionel (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" per WP:NPOV[edit]

There's a ckear disagreement against this proposal. (non-admin closure) --Mhhossein (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to change "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" due to the bias of the term "pro-choice". This would be orthogonal to the "anti-abortion" which is used in descriptions such as The Center for Medical Progress. Reliable sources use the biased term, we should make an exception and not follow WP:RS because there is an adequate unbiased term to be used in its place. Elizium23 (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. "Pro-abortion" does not mean the same as "pro-choice". Pro-choice means supporting the right to choose between abortion and no abortion on an individual basis, and there will certainly be cases where "pro-choice" people will support decisions to not have an abortion. I see no reason for an exception to our standard reliance on common usage in reliable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That suggestion is disruptive and WP:POINTy and is clearly going nowhere. It is also not the proper way to request a name change, if that is what is being suggested. Is this a suggestion to change the title or just the terminology within the article (or both)? This RFC should be speedy closed. Meanwhile, I have submitted a different suggestion for a title change using the WP:RM process. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I came here from the RfC notice, and I am not otherwise involved in the page. I think that it is relevant that the page subject self-describes as "pro-choice". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about organizations which describe themselves as "pro-life"? Elizium23 (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I do not concur that the term "pro-choice" is a biased one, and strongly feel that "pro-abortion" is significantly more biased. ----MichaelProcton (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-abortion rights or the choice to have an abortion. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about "abortion rights organization" in line with Associated Press usage? Goldstein, Norm, ed. The Associated Press Stylebook. Philadelphia: Basic Books, 2007 Wikipedia's pro-choice page is a redirect to Abortion-rights movements. Elizium23 (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you need to let this RfC close and then start a new one if you want to suggest a different change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Summoned by bot. "Pro-abortion" is a much more biased term and as others mentioned above, "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice" do not mean the same thing. Meatsgains (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. It advocates for choice. There is a major difference. I don't see why there should be any change in regards to this. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1 March 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NARAL Pro-Choice America → NARAL – WP:COMMONNAME. The long form is cumbersome and is surely not used very often by anyone. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move. It is the full name of the organization, and also differentiates the national organization from state affiliates. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The suggested destination name already redirects here, and always has, and I doubt anyone will suggest it shouldn't. There is no ambiguity when the term is used without a state-specific qualifier (especially since the "N" stands for "National" in the original acronym which is still its implicit meaning despite being officially deprecated). Wikipedia policy is to use "common names", not "full names" or "official names". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I decided to look back here. (A minor point, but state affiliates still use the "N".) I'm aware of the WP:COMMONNAME policy, but its purpose is ultimately to make it easy for readers to quickly get to a page, as opposed to being some sort of algorithmic end in itself. That becomes particularly important when the common name and the official name are different even in the first couple of characters. Here, that is not the case. Any reader looking for "NARAL" will immediately find this page without getting sidetracked. Consequently, it is appropriate to give some consideration to WP:PRECISION, which is also part of the same policy, and that leaves me still opposing the move. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per WP:COMMONNAME. Most always referred to in the media simply as NARAL, and NARAL already redirects here anyway. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. In my (anecdotal) experience, I have almost exclusively seen the use of the "full" name.----MichaelProcton (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I counted nine sources cited in the article that have some version of the organization's name in their titles. The only one that uses the long form of the name that is used in the current article title is the organization itself. Again, Wikipedia prefers to focus on common names, not official names, and prefers to focus on independent sources. Sources that are more recent should presumably be given somewhat higher weight than older ones, so I looked into that question as well. I noticed five independent sources cited in the article with dates of 2015 or newer. They all have NARAL or Naral in their titles, and none of them have the long version of the name in their title. Sources may mention the long form of the name somewhere in an article as a matter of formal identification, but its common name is simply NARAL (or Naral, but that's not appropriate because it was formed as an acronym and is not a word). Also, anyone whose familiarity with the organization is from prior to 2003 would not be aware of the current long form of the name. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it is valid to only go by titles/headlines, as they are very specifically shortened for obvious reasons. I think you have to go on what it says in the actual body of the source itself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am highly confident that the short name is dominant within the body of sources as well. Is there really any doubt about that? The longer name is simply too cumbersome for general use. Even the organization's logo itself shows the name in two rows, with "NARAL" appearing in large font and the rest of the long name appearing as a subtitle in smaller font. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • There seems to be five independent sources in the article that I can access that have publication dates within the last decade. Within the body of the five articles (ignoring the headline since I already commented about headlines before), I counted 5 places with the long name and 36 places with the short name (NARAL or Naral by itself). I did not count one use of the long name that was in a direct quote from the organization itself, since I'm trying to identify how they are referred to by independent sources. I also found one instance of "National Abortion Rights Action League". (Looking back at my prior comment, it seems that some of the sources I had previously checked were somewhat older than I thought they were – I was apparently mixing up some access dates with publication dates – but I think it doesn't really change the outcome/statistics in any material way.) The bottom line is that the statistics verify my impression – the short name is highly dominant as the common name. The long name is typically found only about once per article where it is provided as a matter of mere formality. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- NARAL Pro-Choice America is the name it goes by and is commonly referred to inside the beltway. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Present name is more informative to those unfamiliar with the purpose of the organisation, and is not needlessly cumbersome. Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism. Elizium23 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NARAL Pro-Choice America. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization Name is "NARAL Pro-Choice America"[edit]

It looks like the page keeps getting edited to restore an old name for the organization (National Abortion Rights Action League). I don't know what constitutes a "canonical source" for the organizations official name, but throughout their own website they use "NARAL Pro-Choice America", including on legal documents like their privacy policy and their 990 filings all use their legal name, "NARAL Pro-Choice America". The organization's legal name is NARAL Pro-Choice America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.50.75 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expand or Remove "Endorsements"[edit]

I think it makes sense to either expand the "Endorsements" section to include details of endorsements in national campaigns since 2008 or to remove it altogether. They endorsed [Biden in 2020](https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/). I'm sure they made an endorsement in 2012 and 2016. If the "endorsements" section is important it should be expanded to cover substantially more elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda bee (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Cleaning up Activities[edit]

I'm hoping to clean up the "Activities" section. It is hard to follow and doesn't really capture the scope of the organizations work. It used the phrase "liberalized access to abortion" which doesn't makes sense. I changed to to just "access to abortion" and added birth control as they run campaigns on both.

To my knowledge the organization works exclusively in the US, and I don't see any indication on their website or 990 filings to the contrary. If they do international work, that needs a citation. Amanda bee (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This paragraph feels like it needs some context or anchoring in time. I've tried to add some, but the whole section needs expansion.

> In an ad featuring anti-abortion violence survivor Emily Lyons and targeting U.S. Supreme Court chief justice nominee John Roberts, NARAL claimed that while U.S. Deputy Solicitor-General, Roberts supported "violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." While Roberts did argue before the Supreme Court that a 19th-century statute directed against the Ku Klux Klan did not apply to those protesting outside abortion clinics, the case in question occurred almost seven years before the bombing pictured in the ad and was entirely unrelated to clinic bombings.[14] The ad was retracted under pressure from other pro-abortion rights groups as undercutting the credibility of the abortion rights cause.[15] NARAL and its affiliates have been criticized by some other pro-abortion rights political activists, both for supporting former Republicans Lincoln Chafee and Michael Bloomberg and for supporting moderate or conservative Democrats.[16] Amanda bee (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the details and added years so that it all makes sense (the ad ran in 2005, the bombing happened in 1998) and edited the section after (about their support for Bloomberg and Chafee) to pull the part about "and their affiliates" -- the only other organization named in the article cited is Planned Parenthood which is not connected to NARAL. I'm not even sure this paragraph belongs, as the only citation is a single HuffPo story and I haven't been able to find much else about the controversy. This post https://amptoons.com/blog/?p=1583 does suggest there was more criticism of their Chafee endorsement. Amanda bee (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History question[edit]

A recent addition under the "History" section references Ann McGuiness, a development director of NARAL. This does not strike me as notable enough for inclusion in this general article about NARAL. Will we then need to mention or list all development directors? I can see a good argument for listing executive directors, but lower level employees seem undeserving of special attention, barring special circumstances. Please weigh in on striking this sentence.--IndyNotes (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

As reported in The New York Times, the organization has changed its name and URL. Lerer, Lisa (2023-09-20). "Abortion Rights Group Sees Mission Beyond 'Pro-Choice,' So It Has a New Name". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-09-20. It is now Reproductive Freedom for All. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reproductive_Freedom_for_All&oldid=1211871334"