Talk:Roe v. Wade

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Before I go in and do an edit that others may not like and create controversy, shouldn’t there be a “Overruled By” section under the laws applied with Planned Parenthood v. Casey being in such category with an (in part) tag? Anyways, PP v. Casey did weaken the restrictions imposed by Roe v. Wade. Thoughts?

Victims

It has been claimed that since the Roe v Wade decision, over 60 million unborn babies have been murdered (https://www.lifenews.com/2018/01/18/60069971-abortions-in-america-since-roe-v-wade-in-1973/){{partisan sources}}

Adding "Long-term Effects" section

It's been recently brought to my attention that there is strong evidence showing how this court case resulted in reduced crime rates ~20 years later nationwide. This evidence is provided by economist/journalist Levitt and Dubner in their book "Freakonomics". I could fill out the section citing the book and its references.

I believe it's important to the future of education to understand how seemingly disconnected areas of human experience can be affected given enough time. Hearing the author's arguments, i thought it was interesting that the court's decision hadn't considered this effect as a way to shape society. To me, this speaks about the immaturity of humanity to not consider future benefits and consequences of these kinds of court cases.

Having this section seems vital given the evidence for it. The connection should be given full exposure on a platform such as wikipedia. Phil.wasag (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Article is Biased

States the Hyde Amendment's purpose is to prevent poor women from accessing health care. This is blatantly misleading. The Hyde Amendment simply states Federal funding cannot be used for abortion services. This article should be objective, not biased. Especially in the counter- argument section. Why have this section at all if it is biased? Roallin (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Challenge of First Paragraph's Penultimate Claim

"During the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.[4]" Footnote [4] refers one to Chemerinsky (2015), §10.3.3.1 (quoting Roe, 410 U.S. at 164).

This appears to be a long-time misunderstanding from a selective excerpting of Roe v. Wade. Roe and subsequent decisions clearly state other requirements for proscribing abortion. Section XI(1)(c) of Roe [1] reads: "(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. "

"Health" was defined broadly to include medical, psychological, and emotional aspects, as related rulings of 1973 showed, making it de facto impossible to proscribe abortion even in the third trimester.

I leave it to the skill and integrity of more experienced editors to cite Roe directly rather than a misleading secondary source. Ray921 (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. Calling Chemerinsky a "misleading secondary source" is laughable. We prefer secondary sources on Wikipedia (see WP:PSTS).  White Whirlwind  咨  16:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting. When I wrote my comment, the words "or health" did not appear in the alleged citation from Chemerinsky. I'm pleased it was added in the interim to improve the accuracy of the article, but the article is still misleading about the ruling in Roe v. Wade since it fails to indicate how broadly Roe required health to be interpreted.

Finally, since I haven't consulted Chemerinsky to see what he writes in his text (though I linked to the primary source on line), I should have been more careful to disparage the previous omission of the words "or health" as required exceptions in Roe during the third trimester. It was not I who cited Chemerinsky while omitting the words "or health." While I recognize there are many cases in which secondary sources may be preferable to primary sources for arriving at truth (especially in science when our knowledge is growing)Ray921 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC), when a primary source is the item under discussion, properly citing the primary source should not be deprecated out of hand. Ray921 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)