This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
I think it's very biased to have a section called misleadings. Furthermore, I don't think her stance on abortion deserves a whole new subject heading. I believe it fits better in the political stances section.
Also, it is very debateable if Jenkins ever has taken any pro-life positions. The Lasing Newspaper you cite doesn't cite Jenkins' pro-life statements. The writer could have misinterpreted Jenkins' position.
I agree with Burroughsks88. This section is a fairly blatant POV slanting of an ambiguous source. The controversy, such as it is, is adequately covered in the prior section. Any factual assertions should be clearly stated in neutral language and accurate citations provided.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
