Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) There is a strong consensus to rephrase the description of Jesse Helms from "strident anti-abortionist" to "prominent opponent of abortion". This is one of those rare RFCs where two sides that appeared initially to be strongly opposed to each other ended up settling on a mutually agreeable compromise. I don't count a single editor involved in this discussion who was clearly opposed to the compromise wording, though one editor still preferred the wording "anti-abortionist" over "opponent of abortion". The other two questions were withdrawn too early for any consensus to be found on them, even a declaration of no consensus. Loki (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Question: Should the description of Jesse Helms as a "Strident anti-Abortionist" be included on the page? It appears on the first sentence of paragraph 4.

Question 2: Should the section mentioning the poll that says 77% of Americans oppose funding for abortion overseas be included?

Question 3: Should the discussion of the attempted repeal in 2021 be included?

3Kingdoms (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) 03:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Procedural close (or withdrawal) requested - please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Creating_an_RfC for advice on how to do this properly. Specifically, more than one question in one RfC isn't allowed. Similarly, "Overuse of RFCs doesn't help: It is rare for a single article, or a single editor, to have more than one or two productive RFCs open at a time. Before starting a lot of RFCs, please check in on the RFC talk page for advice." Wes sideman (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

My bad. Removed the two additional questions.

• Include - it's two words, it's accurate, and it's the quickest way to sum up his position and add context for readers unfamiliar with the late senator. His own article includes the phrase "was particularly vociferous on the issue of abortion" - vociferous is one of several synonyms for "strident" that are sourced at the end of that sentence. The argument against including it was basically WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Wes sideman (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude Citing WP:Impartial. This is a deliberate attempt to cast both Helms and the amendment in a negative light. The article is a about a law originally passed by the U.S. Senate by a 52 to 42 vote (not sure what the House margin was but obviously it was a majority). This is not an article about Helms personally and there is no good encyclopedic reason to bring up subjective views of his demeanor. The fact that some sources do, doesn't obligate us to follow suit. When dealing with reliable but biased sources we don't go out our way to duplicate the bias. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude I agree with GTM's reasoning. As well I find Helms's opposition to abortion to be self-evident, so I do not think it is needed. While one source calls him an "anti-abortionist" it is from 1987. I do not find that enough reasoning to include. Also, strident seems to have a negative connotation. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Include. It is clearly on-topic. If this was any normal amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act then it would be a bit random to mention it but as this one directly concerns abortion it is helpful to provide this directly relevant context. If people object to "strident", which I can see a reasonable objection to, then maybe "prominent anti-abortionist" or "prominent opponent of abortion" would be more acceptable? Removing it entirely seems far less reasonable as that makes the article less useful to our readers. Remember that not all readers are Americans and not even all Americans will have background knowledge about Helms. Sure, Helms did not pass this alone but he was involved enough for his name to be attached to the amendment and nobody is suggesting removing all other mention of Helms from the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Good points even though you're arguing against my position. I had modified "strident antiabortionist" to something along the lines of your second wording suggestion but it was changed back by Wes sideman. The problem with "strident antiabortionist" is that it is clearly negative in connotation if not denotation. Googling the definition of "strident" one finds a. "loud and harsh, grating" along with b. "presenting a point, especially a contoversial one, in an excessively and unpleasantly forceful way". People we agree with we rarely describe as "strident". It's usually reserved for our opponents. As for "antiabortionist", it reminds me of "communist" and "anticommunist". Calling someone a "communist" was supposed to be an insult, but for people on the left, calling someone an "anticommunist" became a kind of insult. In short, I don't have a problem with prominent opponent of abortion. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Prominent opponent of abortion" I do not have an issue with. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. As User:Goodtablemanners correctly points out above, the word strident has a negative connotation, so using it in wikivoice this way violates WP:NPOV. An alternative phrasing such as "prominent opponent of abortion" would avoid this problem. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• I like prominent opponent of abortion. I don't think it's redundant to give some background on where Helms is coming from on this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Wes sideman, would you oppose this option? I'm seeing a chance to close an RfC early and save some community time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wes sideman has been suspended from abortion topics, broadly construed, for a while. I notice someone else is complaining about him at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents. Goodtablemanners (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh you "noticed" that, eh? Nice coat-hanger. Maybe you also noticed that the editor who filed the spurious complaint is now blocked by admins. WP:BOOMERANG. Wes sideman (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I closed this RfC early in this diff and have now reversed that closure per a request at my talk page. I relisted the RfC and inserted a new timestamp just before 3K's original. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agrée with “prominent opponent of abortion”. That seems a neutral way of describing him. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude: "...a prominent opponent of abortion" seems acceptable. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "prominent". However, "anti-abortionist" is accurate and "opponent of abortion" is unnecessary extra words. "Prominent anti-abortionist" would be fine. Wes sideman (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

Support for and Mexico City Policy

A user objects to addition of a poll that shows most Americans oppose the funding of abortion overseas. Their objection is rested on the belief that since it does not mention the Helms Amendment directly it should not be included. I feel given that the Helms Amendment is directly tied with the question it is not a reach to connect the two. Furthermore, other sources have already done so House Democrats Vote to Fund Elective Abortions Overseas with U.S. Tax Dollars | National Review, Poll: Majority support legal limits on abortion, oppose taxpayer funding | America Magazine Hyde Amendment not in Biden’s budget, signaling abortion policy change - Deseret News Thus I do not see a reason not to mention the polling or maintain it is not connected to the Helms Amendment.

With regards to the Mexico City Policy, I do not see why its history is mentioned here. It was a separate policy enacted a decade later. The current wording says "The Mexico City Policy is a direct result of the Helms Amendment of 1973": Yet the article does not say that. Instead the mention is that the Helms Amendment is stricter than the Mexico City Policy:

"In practice, it has also been used to prohibit the use of federal funding for all abortions even in the circumstances of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the pregnant person, exceptions that have been allowed in other areas of U.S. international abortion law and policy, such as the Mexico City Policy when it has been in place."

So, I really do not see the point of having its history discussed. I do believe it should be in the see also section, but do not think it belongs in the main article in its current form.  I hope that explains my position well enough and would like to hear from others. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you don't see why the Mexico City Policy is mentioned here. I didn't add it, but I looked at the sourcing, and the sourcing explicitly discusses the policy and the connections to the Helms Amendment. If you really wanted to improve the article, you could add more references from a multitude of reliable sources. Wes sideman (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The policy discussion is that Helms is stricter than the MCP that is not reflected in the current wording. As a separate policy I do not see why we need to include its history here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Already explained that the sources explain how closely they are linked. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Wes sideman (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither source on the Mexico City policy says they are closely linked. I do not understand your “drop the stick” claim. You are the only person who has opposed the inclusion of the polling and the removal of the Mexico City policy. No one else has weighted in which is why I made this thread that you also said I should do. Your adamant opposition to the inclusion of the polling I do not understand since you have never addressed the fact that I have multiple sources linking the Marist poll to the Amendment itself. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I somewhat weakly oppose mentioning the poll. We have sources that mention both the amendment and the poll, but not sources that draw much of a connection between the two. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I understand your point, even though I disagree. It seems to come down to interpretation of the sources. For me it's not a stretch to include polling gauging support for something and then linking it to the policy that does just that even if not mentioned. Anyway, what is your view of the section regarding the Mexico City Policy? 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What sources support "The Mexico City Policy is a direct result of the Helms Amendment of 1973"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

While I feel this is really nitpicking at individual words now, I removed "direct result", edited the sentence, and added a source. The connection is pointed out by countless sources. I'm happy to add 50 more if that's what it takes to satisfy all editors. Wes sideman (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No source says MCP is a direct result of Helms. KFF mention of is:

"In practice, it has also been used to prohibit the use of federal funding for all abortions even in the circumstances of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the pregnant person, exceptions that have been allowed in other areas of U.S. international abortion law and policy, such as the Mexico City Policy when it has been in place."

Wes has since added two sources that says some anti-abortion activists wanted to go further which eventually led to the MCP. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Most of the connection is being drawn by 3Kingdoms himself. It's WP:SYNTHESIS. Wes sideman (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are three additional sources linking polling support to the amendment. [1],[2], & [3]

Newsweek - not a reliable source, check WP:NEWSWEEK

Catholic News Agency - obviously POV source on its face

Forbes article mentions the Knights of Columbus poll once, in passing, and points out that the Knights are an anti-abortion group.

For a good explanation of why that poll was deeply flawed in the first place, you can read this article. Wes sideman (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Inclusion of Marist Poll

Should a link to the 21 January 2022 America magazine article reporting a Marist poll showing 54% opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion be included in the article on the Helms Amendment? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Please answer Yes or No with a brief explanatory statement in the Survey. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion is for.

Survey

• No. After looking into this debate some more, I think the article will be better without the addition of the poll. The beginning of the article is currently good, but it becomes a bit of a WP:Coatrack around the Mexico City Policy. Including the poll seems to require explaining the background of the poll, who commissioned it, who did it, and how it didn't ask about the Helms Amendment directly. This all seems like a lot of ink to spill on a minor piece of information that's indirectly related to the Helms amendment. It's fine if this article is short and doesn't cover the poll. Yes It's WP:V. Marist is a good pollster and information about public opinion related to taxpayer funding of abortion seems germane to the article. But I wonder why you opened this RFC? This doesn't seem like a controversial edit to me.

Groceryheist (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Groceryheist (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• No. (Summoned by bot) After reading the discussion at DRN, I think the poll adds nothing to understanding of the topic and therefore that the article is better without it. It is giving too much WP:WEIGHT to a barely reported, relatively small-scale and non-neutrally-commissioned poll - which is only peripherally related to Helms - to include it in the article. Why is this poll so important? Pincrete (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• No - I oppose including the poll based on the non-reliability of any single poll on abortion as being representative of public opinion. (Undue weight for ONE poll paid for by a non-neutral organization; Knights of Columbus, a Catholic anti-abortion group, funded this poll.)

A very quick search without more investigation finds this 2021 opinion piece by a reproductive rights organization which cites a poll which directly contradicts the Marist poll: "Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans support funding global health programs that provide comprehensive reproductive health services, abortion included. The same poll showed a majority of Americans want to repeal Helms."

And this article in the Washington Post says: We’re often wary of polls commissioned by advocacy groups. In this case, Jayapal is relying on a poll done for a group that wants more public funding of abortions. The outcome of polls often depends greatly on the framing of questions. (my bolding)---Avatar317^(talk) 00:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Marist is a well-respected polling group. Regarding the issue of commissioning the poll. I agree that abortion polling is always difficult because of framing, but it does not make it impossible. The WP mentions the issue with the poll showing support by mentioning its long and somewhat confusing question. The Marist poll by contrast is straightforward in asking about the policy Helms governs. Of course, the article also mentions terms like "tax-payer funded" also can have a negative effect, but believed it not to mitigate the results. This resulted in them coming out against Jayapal's assertion of support with regards to repealing Hyde. I believe the same should be applied to this one on Helms. Finally I feel enough reliable sources such as Desert have mentioned the poll in the contexts of the amendment to warrant inclusion3Kingdoms (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Public opinion adds value to understanding of the topic. While Marist is indeed highly respected, results from multiple polls may be added as well to present a more balanced public opionion. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Groceryheist - See the discussion at DRN and previous disagreement on the article talk page. So, yes, I opened the RFC because it was controversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I was brought here by Yapperbot so I didn't have the background. I see that a pro-life organization commissioning the poll would raise concerns that the topic was sufficiently important to collect polling data about and can imagine ways that this could bias the poll. However, the 54% number doesn't seem super surprising given that most Americans support abortion's legality but don't like it. It would be better if there were several polls that had asked this or similar questions as a basis of comparison. I'll think about revising my survey response. Groceryheist (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

References