Talk:Abortion in the United States

Archives
Archive 1 (Dec. 2004 - June 2007)

Irrelevant Sentence

It seems to me that the following line is irrelevant in an article on abortion and should be deleted - or am I missing something?

"They also believed that a woman should be allowed to refuse sex with her husband. An American woman had no legal recourse at that time against rape by her husband, except possibly divorce,[4] an option that (especially before the American Civil War) was usually available only for well-connected women of means who had sufficient resources not just to end the marriage but to also survive without a husband." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.192.176 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AGI, CDC and recent addition

I'm confused why this article is using CDC statistics rather than AGI statistics for yearly number of abortions in the U.S. CDC does not include abortion figures from every state (including California), so its total is always dramatically lower than reality. AGI may be a "pro-choice source", but most anti-abortion people that I have heard use AGI figures because they are the most extensive. So if both sides use AGI data, there shouldn't be a POV/NPOV concern about using AGI. If the article keeps using CDC statistics rather than AGI, then there should at least be a note about how CDC figures are incomplete.(talk) 08:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved this from the article:

The figures above are from the CDC. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is generally considered more reliable and produces an abortion count which is on average 15% higher. The AGI acknowledges a "pro-choice" bias and estimates that its abortion count may be 3% short of the actual total. (AGI, The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion, Issues in Brief, 01/1997.) Statistics extrapolated from AGI's yearly count show that 47,282,923 abortions had been performed from 1973 to 2005. According to the Supreme Court, relying on figures from the CDC in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 87% of abortions in 2005 were first trimester abortions. Therefore, 13% of abortions were second and third trimester, or "late term." If we assume that figure is an approximate yearly average then there have been, at a minimum, six million late term abortions since Roe v. Wade.

What is the purpose of these latest additions? What are they getting at? The last 4 or 5 sentences are completely unsourced, and partially inaccurate/original research. The article cited The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion doesn't say anything about "bias" or "pro-choice". There are other problems as well. Anyway, can we discuss what the article is lacking, how we should remedy that, and then work together to reach a consensus version we can all live with?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I agree with the removal of the material for the reasons stated above. · jersyko talk 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, please come here and discuss your proposal, and stop edit warring. You can't force controversial new content against consensus. Work with us, not against us, please.

Here are some more reasons that the new text is problematic. Without citing math or a reliable source, it claims that one can extrapolate from the AGI data the number of total abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade. However, this as it stands is original research, and we simply cannot publish this number for the first time. Where are the sources? Similarly, it is extremely erroneous to use the figure of 2nd and 3rd-tri abortions from 2005, and assume that it was the same for the last 30 years. Using that sort of math is worse than a guesstimate, and is misleading the reader. Finally, the definition of a 2nd tri-abortion as being "late-term" isn't universal. See our article for more details. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[moved from the "Biased statments" section above]The article's statements about the number of abortions is slyly deceptive. The number of late term abortions is presented only as a percentage of the overall number of abortions since Roe v. Wade. Nowhere are these numbers made explicit. Only the number of abortions in the U.S. in 2003 is made explicit. That number, 854,122, is about half the peak number of abortions in any of the years since Roe, hardly a representative number. The percentage of late term abortions (2nd and 3rd trimester) in the innocuous looking pie chart adds up to 11.3%, a number significantly exceeded by the Alan Guttmacher Institute's calculations, which are generally considered more reliable than those of the Center for Disease Control cited in the pie chart. If we enumerate the total number of abortions since Roe and factor in the more reliable percentage, we find that the number of late term abortions since Roe exceeds 6,000,000, a figure the writers of "Abortion in the United States" apparently wish to conceal. I propose the following edit to be added immediately under figure 1 in "Number of Abortion in United States":

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank you for coming to the talk page. Now, perhaps you could read some of the comments already made above and reply to some of our concerns. Part of the issue is that your extrapolating figures results in original research that hasn't been published outside wikipedia, and therefore is inappropriate for use here. You also use an uncommon definition of "late-term" and haven't justified why the AGI is a "self-acknowledged "pro choice" research organization" or why that information is even important here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from AGI itself: "...the Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable all women and families to avoid unplanned pregnancies and births and exercise the right to choose abortion safely and with dignity." http://www.guttmacher.org/about/2007/06/25/AnnualReport2006.pdf. (Wikipedia cites AGI 74 times in various articles and nowhere mentions AGI's bias. In the same way, the article under discussion here nowhere mentions that the CDC fails to include all the states in its tally of abortions)

You cite AGI and CDC in this article. Someone needed to point out AGI's bias and CDC's incomplete count.

Your article also states, "According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 854,122 legal induced abortions in the US in 2003." This is the lead statement in the section of the article dealing with the number of abortions. It is not only prominent; it is entirely unqualified, which suggests that it is typical of the yearly abortion rate in the U.S. It most certainly is not. Did the critic of my "worse than a guesstimate" object to that statement in the article? I will agree that I ought to have included the qualification, "If we assume that the figure cited by the Court is typical...."

Furthermore, pointing out CDC's stunted estimates will help the objectivity of the article.

Basic arithmetic is not "original research."

Late-term abortion is commonly defined as 2nd and 3rd term abortion. But I make it clear in my suggested edit that by late term abortion I mean 2nd and 3rd term abortion. So there is nothing misleading here.

Had I time, I would address all the issues raised. I will make only one more point. Planned Parenthood and its sister pro-choice organizations habitually state that only a "very small percentage" of abortions are late term abortions. This makes the number sound small. The article's pie chart adopts this perspective. However, the statement that over 6,000,000 late term abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade doesn't sound small and will give the reader a choice of perspectives. I hope you folks have a committment to choice as well as truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) It has been a couple of days since I wrote this response to the critics of my proposed edit. This time no one has made any reply. I assume that's because they are satisfied. I will wait a couple of days more and if there are still no objections, I will reintroduce my edit (with the changes mentioned above) into the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk • contribs)

Please provide reliable sources that can be used to verify your claims through citations if you want to include such information in the article. I have no opinion as to whether you are correct or not regarding the number of abortions in the United States, or the inaccuracy of the CDC, or the accuracy/bias (I'm not really sure what you're getting at) of the AGI. However, I will insist on extremely reliable sources for each of your claims. As it stands, you are continuing to engage in unreferenced original research, such as your math regarding the number of late term abortions. A way to remedy this problem, for example, is to provide a reliable source that presents the math in the way you have suggested. Similarly, I'm perplexed regarding support for the claim that the AGI data is more reliable than the CDC. Thanks. · jersyko talk 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But I just gave you hypertext leading to AGI's own self-description in its own publication: "...the Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable all women and families to avoid unplanned pregnancies and births and exercise the right to choose abortion safely and with dignity." http://www.guttmacher.org/about/2007/06/25/AnnualReport2006.pdf. If you can reject that you can reject anything. Also a cite was given for the statement that AGI was more reliable than CDC (The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion) What the hell is going on? I'm beginning to think that you guys just don't want that 6,000,000 figure known. Objectivity isn't making neutral statements; it's making true statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm simply not understanding. Please correct any of this if you believe I am wrong. You're saying that the AGI is a pro-choice organization, thus it is not a particularly reliable source given its agenda. However, you also are using an AGI source (the "Limitations" source) to demonstrate that the CDC figures (which are used in our article) are wrong. I'm not sure how to square these two positions, but moving on. Finally, you haven't provided any reliable source, other than your arithmetic, to demonstrate that the number of late term abortions is what you say it is. If you provide one, we can move on. Am I misunderstanding anything here? · jersyko talk 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that AGI's pro-choice position would, if anything, cause it to underestimate the number of abortions in the U.S. since Roe. Therefore, we can treat its 47,000,000 figure as a minimum and its claim that CDC under-reports abortions as accurate. The actual total of abortions since Roe has probably passed 50,000,000 by now. My use of the 47,000,000 figure is an estimate of the number that can be backed up by citation. Also, do you really doubt the statement from AGI that it supports abortion rights? Don't readers of Wikipedia, which cites AGI so often, have a right to know its position? Let's not be working to keep the readers of Wikipedia ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have one more change to make. then, i think, Im through. Determining the number of abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade is extremely difficult.Most of the figures above and below are from the CDC. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is generally considered more reliable and produces an abortion count which is on average 15% higher. If we add up the Alan Guttmacher Institute's (AGI's) yearly abortion tallies, we find that 46,995,300 abortions were performed from 1973 through 2003. The AGI is a self-acknowledged "pro choice" research organization, so it is not likely to have overestimated the number of abortions.. AGI estimates a 3% under-count for its own figures.In 2002 the Center for Disease Control estimated that just under 87% of abortions were first term abortions, a fact relied upon by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007. Therefore, 13% were second and third term abortions, a percentage which multiplied by 46,995,300 yields 6,108,389 as the number of 2nd and 3rd term abortions performed in the U.S. between 1973 and 2004.

Please consider WP:OR carefully. The following are examples of original research in the proposed addition: "If we add up the Alan Guttmacher Institute's (AGI's) yearly abortion tallies" . . . "it is not likely to have overestimated the number of abortions" . . . and the entire final sentence. Have you looked for a source that says everything you have noted here? For example, is there a newspaper article out there that discusses inaccuracies in abortion figures? That would be immeasurably helpful to you in including the information you want to include. In fact, if you can find such a reliable source, I will happily endorse its inclusion. As it is, though, there's far too much original research involved for me to do so. · jersyko talk 21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can do what you ask if you will allow me to use sources that are pro-life. You now allow the pro-choice AGI as a reference even though it admits that it's figures are inaccurate by about three percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to use any source you like, including a self-described "pro-life" organization, provided that it meets the standards found here. · jersyko talk 14:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a side note. If you are going to be using talk pages, then you need to learn how to "sign" your comments. Look at the top of the talk page edit window (the one in which you are going to type your reply), and you will see a box that says Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). This 'code' automatically creates a name and timestamp at the end of your posts. This makes it so everyone can keep track of who is saying what. So just add the tildes at the end of your next post. Doing so will prevent the SineBot from coming and adding the message that your post was unsigned. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you removed my edits from the article on anencephaly in favor of such statements as "Infants born with anencephaly are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain," which cites no source at all. Nobody on earth knows whether an anencephalic baby can feel pain or anything else for that matter. You really do have a double standard here and it really seems to favor the pro-choice position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, did you even read my last comment? Do you not understand what I mean when I say "sign" your comments? I'd be more than glad to try to help, but I'm not sure how else I could explain it besides to ask you to please type four tildes at the end of your posts. Next, I do not recall removing any edits having to do with anencephaly. I just checked through your edit history and couldn't find the edit in question. Could you post diffs to this alleged revert? (you can see what a diff is by clicking on the page history tab, and then looking at the links that say "diff". it shows the changes between revisions). Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, please try to assume good faith. Neither one of us reverted your edits at that article, but rather another anonymous editor appears to have done so. I'm not following your edits to other articles, and I feel certain Andrew c isn't either. So, again, please assume good faith and refrain from continuing to accuse editors of things they did not and are not doing. · jersyko talk 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Could one of you answer this finally?

Before I put in any more effort, I'd like to hear your verdict on the statement and citation below. Keep in mind that the addition here was done by NRL not me;I'm just describing the results of their "original research;" (I'm assuming sources are allowed to do "original research.") Would you allow the following paragraph to be put in Abortion in the United States?

Adding the abortion figures released by AGI from 1973 to 2004 and estimating the number of abortion from 2004 to 2006, National Right to Life(NRL) concludes that there have been 48,585,993 abortions in the United States between 1973 and 2007. (footnote: NRL, "The Consequences of Roe v. Wade 48,585,993 Total Abortions since 1973," Jan.,2007. http://www.nlc.org/factsheets/FS03_AbortionsintheUS.pdf)

The Physicians for Life, which has an entry in Wikipedia, reviews technical statements for the NRL. "please type four tildes at the end of your post." I did. It doesn't work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 September 2007

OK, first, please try to copy and paste the following ~~~~ and put at after your last sentence of your next post. Next, the sentence leaves you that they also calculated an extra 3% based on AGI's estimate of underreporting. Also, the range is 1973-2003 (not 2004) based on this (the link you provided is dead). Also, there are still reliable sourcing issues. Read through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Aspects_of_reliability. Multiple points jump out at me. Why isn't this number reported in more notable journals? Peer reviewed journals? Why isn't this number reported in popular media sources? There are even some concerns dealing with the "Extremist sources" section. I'd be more comfortable if we had a less partisan, more official or scholarly source for this number. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You have read my edits as presented above. Therefore, you know that the claim that AGI is pro-choice cites directly to an AGI statement that says it is pro-choice. The declaration is often repeated in AGI literature. AGI is cited twice in the "Abortion in the United States" article and mentioned 74 times altogether in Wikipedia. You have no quarrel with this, unless I add the AGI yearly counts together to come up with a minimum total. But you do quarrel with an NRL cite. You are clearly biased. Trading proposed edits back and forth in this context is the same as what you call "edit warring." It's useless. You win the "war." You have effectively concealed from the readers of Wikipedia the fact that there have been over 6,000,000 second and third term abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade. I'm sure you know the company you're in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a warning about assuming good faith on the anon's talk page. Anon, all you have to do is provide a reliable source for your claims. That's all we're asking. Find a newspaper article, find a peer reviewed study if you want to include those numbers. If no such sources exist, that might be telling. In any event, I'm simply making a request for a reliable source, and I believe that Andrew c is doing exactly the same thing. We care about abiding by Wikipedia guidelines, not concealing information. · jersyko talk 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Stats moved from main abortion article

I have moved this out of the main abortion article as it is too detailed there. I haven't checked if this content is redundant here, so I am coming to talk to see if any regulars here would like to give a shot in integrating this text:

In the United States, abortion has predominantly been provided in high volume abortion clinics since its legalization in the 70’s. Approximately 93% of abortions in the United States are performed in clinic settings (defined as 400+/year). 80% are performed in large clinics (1000+/year). Hospitals provide 5% of abortion services; physicians provide 2% of abortion services. From 1996 to 2000, all types of providers decreased in their percentage of abortions performed except the highest volume clinics (5000+/year). Thus, abortions are increasingly concentrated among a smaller number of very large providers. . Since 2000 there have been significant efforts to mainstream early abortion services into family practice settings. Medical abortion and Manual Vacuum Aspiration (both considered nonsurgical abortions) are now being offered in general family practice offices.

-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Edit

Under "Additional Statistics", the following appeared:

An April 2006 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade, asked, "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?", to which 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition. The Harris organization has concluded from this poll that "49 percent now support Roe vs. Wade." In fact, the poll question only dealt with first trimester abortions, and it is known that the legality of later abortions is more controversial (see above). Pro-life groups assert that the media has often misreported polls on the issue of abortion.

The first sentence following the actual statistics is debatable, but the remainder is clearly not npov and represents a flagrant abuse of facts (the question was phrased to explicitly limit its scope to the aspect of Roe dealing with first trimester abortions; the commentary goes on to say that it's narrower than this because it only pertains to first trimester abortions) and insertion of opinion under the tired "some people say..." dodge. I've cut the portion following the actual statistic since it is at best misinformed (by implying that Roe is the root of all abortion) and has more likely willfully "misreported polls on the issue of abortion". Also, did a grammar edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.211.139 (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The sentences you removed were uncited and rather POV. · jersyko talk 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Late Term Reasons Study Misread by Contributor

<quote>In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:</quote>

<quote>In all, 1900 women responded with useful information, of whom 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. Because such women had been oversampled, their reasons for having an abortion were weighted to reflect the proportion of U.S. abortion patients who obtain midtrimester abortions.</quote>

The first quote is from the article as it is, now. The second quote is from cited the study itself. The article claims that the results that follow are the statistics pertaining to only the responses of the late term abortion patients. The study, however, does not make that distinction in its results and in fact is meant to be a representation of all abortion patients, as the obtained reponses of the midtrimester abortion patients are scaled down to represent the group more accurately in the total number of abortion patients in the United States. The wiki article's claim is outright false and misrepresentative of late term abortion patients. In the interest of factual truth, someone please remove that segment or find a better suited set of statistics ASAP.

DGrayson (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

State to state differences

I was expecting to find an entire section in this article dealing with the state to state differences, in terms of availability, public funding, legal restrictions, legislation, etc. But there is only a single paragraph summarizing the situation. I know this article has a devoted coterie of editors, so I strongly urge you to expand that paltry paragraph into a full section. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition of abortion "in medical terms"...?

At the top of the page, there, first paragraph ... Should I insert a citation needed tag? Who says that's what an abortion means in medical terms? I don't think the layman is familiar with medical terminology for that claim to be public knowledge. -- Newagelink (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Major Shift in Abortion Demographics

I don't have time right now to incorporate this, so I post it here on the talk page -

• Study Finds Major Shift in Abortion Demographics KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory waiting periods map

The choice of ranges for the two colors on the map seemed designed to make the average waiting period look longer. While the vast majority of states mentioned in the sources have 24-hour waiting periods, they are all lumped in with the tiny minority of states that have longer periods, in the "24 hours or longer" group. In fact, if I read the sources correctly, all of the states in that category actually 24-hour waits, b/c the only states with longer requirements have enforcement stayed by a court. So now the map deceptively implies that some or all of those states have longer waiting periods, when in actuality, they're all (or nearly all) at 24 hours exactly. ~ MD Otley (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Statistics - Abortions and political party

Removed the section under statistics on abortion and political party because it does not have sufficient citations to establish that it is not WP:OR. The source cited does not appear to break down the statistics in the way presented. (Since the source publication coincides with the 2008 election, it would display marked clairvoyance if it did.) There are many other possible statistical differences between these groupings of states. Citation of reliable sources would be needed to establish connection between the results of the 2008 presidential election and abortion frequency. Zodon (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: Why is there no clear section for the Pro-Choice groups, like there is for the Pro-Life groups. I do not mean to sound ignorant or ill-informed. but someone reading a Wiki article on the topic needs clear topic headings. One glancing at this page would conclude that the article was not fair and leaned towards Pro-Life groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiteratureAdore (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps there should be an "Abortion Debate" section, such as exists in the Abortion article. Then various pro-life and pro-choice arguments can be positioned head-to-head, regardless of political affiliation. V (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

"Legalization resulted in a dramatic decrease in women dying from abortion." You what else happened in that time frame? Advances in medicine. This is like saying the raised drinking age saved lives, ignoring the seatbelt laws that came into play. 128.146.46.2 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? Besides that, what does this have to do with the article? If you're going to discuss the article, make your point clear. If you're going to discuss the topic, go elsewhere. Thanks. --13² 04:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdated Research

Many of the statistics in this article are not from recent studies. For example, an April 2009 Pew Research Center study reported significantly different numbers than the ones in this article. May I suggest that we update the statistics to more recent studies, such as the one I posted?

Also, the article states "Since 1973, over 45 million legal abortions have been performed in the United States." The source for this states that this is the period between 1973 and 2005. Most of the numbers I see reported currently are at least 50 million.

Since so much of the studies used in this article are so old, it would take a significant amount of effort to update it. Should I start updating a few things?--Minimidgy (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. But please leave older data that has no recent counterpart. For example, if an old poll in 1985 asked a question that is not asked by a more recent poll, then it's perfectly accurate for this article to give the results as long as we also say when the question was asked.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The polling data, in particular, is quite dated (of course, it's also the most difficult to keep up to date, as new polls come out all the time). In addition to the Pew poll, there's also a new Gallup poll on the issue. The results are generally consistent with those of the Pew poll. EastTN (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Only

I have an issue with this statement "Moreover, due to the Hyde Amendment, many state health programs which poor women rely on for their health care do not cover abortions; currently only 17 states (including California, Illinois and New York) offer or require such coverage." The word "only" in this case reveals the likely bias of the author. Would 30 states be enough for the author to take the world "only" out? 40 states? How many? Either way I'm taking it upon myself to remove the word "only" since it reads the same without it. The only difference being that the bias is removed. This same statement is made in Hyde Amendment so I'm removing it from there as well. Please do not put it back in without explaining why it should be there. 98.204.199.107 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Role of ultrasound in choice

I'd recommend a section, possibly integrated into another section, regarding the increased role of ultasound technology in women's choice to keep their babies. RMonWiki (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of new info in Public Opinion

Per the discussion at [[1]], I will be adding in the polling information previously provided at the Pro-life movement page, and then linking here to keep that page more concise. Let me know your thoughts on how and where to best incorporate this data. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Messy Graphs

The graphs under Abortions/demographics are in a bit of a mess. Could someone (with more skill than me) try and shuffle them into place? It would make the article look more professional. InternetGoomba (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

More polling

I have removed a polling section from the pro-life article for various reasons. If anyone wants to salvage the content, please feel free, and make reference to the source article for CC-BY-SA attribution -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Polling

See also: Abortion in the United States § Public opinion

Americans, as noted by Gallup in "More Americans Pro-Life Than Pro-Choice", are now being polled as Pro-Life, as opposed to Pro-Choice, for the first time since 1995, when Gallup began tracking the issue. CNN, in May 2007 earlier achieved this result, with just 45% surveying as Pro-Choice compared to 50% Pro-Life, though at the time, Gallup a week later found 49% responding Pro-Choice with only 45% Pro-Life.

Nevertheless, as Gallup now notes, abortion attitudes are indeed shifting. According to Gallup's most recent polling of the issue, the gap has now narrowed to a virtual deadlock:

Date of Poll	Pro- Life	Pro- Choice	Mixed / Neither	Don't Know What Terms Mean	No Opinion
2010, March 26-28	46%	45%	4%	2%	3%
2009, November 20-22	45%	48%	2%	2%	3%
2008, September 5-7	43%	51%	2%	1%	3%

According to Gallup's long-time polling on abortion, the majority of Americans are neither strictly Pro-Life or Pro-Choice; it depends upon circumstances. Gallup polling from 1996 to 2009 consistently reveals that when asked the question, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?", Americans repeatedly answer 'legal only under certain circumstances'. According to the poll, in any given year 48-57% say legal only under certain circumstances (for 2009, 57%), 21-34% say legal under any circumstances (for 2009, 21%), and 13-19% illegal in all circumstances (for 2009, 18%), with 1-7% having no opinion (for 2009, 4%).

"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

	Legal under any circumstances	Legal only under certain circumstances	Illegal in all circumstances	No opinion
2009 Jul 17-19	21%	57%	18%	4%
2009 May 7-10	22%	53%	23%	2%
2008 May 8-11	28%	54%	18%	2%
2007 May 10-13	26%	55%	17%	1%
2006 May 8-11	30%	53%	15%	2%

As detailed in Abortion_in_the_United_States, and further cited from the aforementioned Gallup poll on Abortion,, Americans overwhelmingly support abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, or when rape and incest has occurred, but do not support it when the woman does not want the child for any reason, or can not afford to have the child (perhaps given that adoption is the preferred alternative). They furthermore support abortion by a large margin in the 1st trimester, but only a small minority support it after the 3rd month of pregnancy. Polling by Gallup also reveals substantial support for many of the Pro-Life community's legislative initiatives.

If one looks at the historical data on the Gallup site, we see that the main cohorts in the opinion have remained generally consistent since US abortion attitudes closely divided. The largest cohort is middle of the road, favouring neither a total ban, nor total de-criminalization. One must fudge the data and use weasel words in order to ascribe the middle of the road cohort to the "pro-life" position. Historically, the "pro-life" camp has called abortion murder and has favoured a total ban on abortion. The only allowable defence in homicide is self defence. It follows that if abortion is murder, then it should only be allowed if the pregnancy itself threatens the prospective mother's life (not just her health generally). Those who allow abortion in any other circumstances are not "pro-life". The fact that Gallup follows the "pro-life" weasel wording on this does not mean we have to. Therefore

Gallup furthermore established public support for many issues supported by the Pro-Life community and opposed by the Pro-Choice community

is POV. We could also claim that the middle group is pro-choice because they allow some choice. Ermadog (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Table by Year

Is there a reason that the table doesn't have Guttmacher numbers in it? It seems like it'd be easy to add an AGI column next to the CDC column, and (IMO) that would be a major improvement. A casual reader might think something very odd happened between 1997 & 1998. I'll change the table myself if it's just that no one wanted to be bothered, but I thought it best to ask on the TALK page first in case there's something controversial about the proposed change. OckRaz (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of abortions in United States

The lede in this section is inaccurate. The CDC numbers aren't the number of legal induced abortions. OckRaz (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Acts of Reception and History of Common Law

When I wanted to find out how American law is based on English common law, I of course turned to wiki. Not being either a lawyer nor an American, I had no idea how to verify this. In consequence, it took a lot of clicking before finding the mention of Acts of Reception. There is a great deal more that could be said on this topic, but the easiest way to summarize it for purposes of this article is simply to point to the acts of Reception. Unfortunately, I have not yet figured out how to link to a specific section of a page and have had to resort to inelegant language to get my citation in. Any edit which cleans up the language yet retains the citation would not be challenged by me.

I think it's notable that Bouvier adopts the exact language of Coke, via Blackstone, in his Dictionary of the Law. Whether that carries more weight than Madison's commentary, I wouldn't know. However, he retains the wording dating back to Leges Henrici Primi, 1115, defining murder: the deceased must have been "a reasonable creature in rerum natura " and in the King's peace. The fetus is not deemed a reasonable creature, and until fully expelled from the womb was not an independent agent and therefore not in the King's peace. Bracton notwithstanding, the Leges deemed abortion "quasi-homicide", as did all subsequent law writers. The penalty for abortion was never as severe as for actual homicide. Citing Bracton and ignoring all the other writers, as the "pro-life" activists do, is POV. I have edited the Born alive rule page to reflect this, and am gradually working my way through the abortion project.Ermadog (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Statistics by Maternal Age?

It would be useful to have a graph showing abortion rates and/or annual number of abortions by the mother's age. Tetsuo (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but a woman who kills her unborn child is not a mother. Dylan Flaherty 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, don't go there... the definition of mother is so flexible that it can encompass the mere creation of a thing. In the broadest sense, a female is spoken of as a mother in regard to her potential or wish to breed. For instance, in infertility literature, the barren woman is often referred to as "the mother". Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just take it as a side comment. I asked about this on Talk:Abortion and found out that this topic is a third rail. Dylan Flaherty 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a graph would be useful, showing per capita abortion rates and total abortions by year. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Current Status of Abortion Law?

I'm confused as to the status of abortion law after the fetus is viable. As I understand it, Planned Parenthood v. Casey establishes the "undue burden" test for a nonviable fetus. What is the test for a viable fetus? I hear the term "health and wellbeing of the mother" used quite a bit, but I don't find that anywhere in the article and I don't know whether that is actually part of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.44.163 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced and inaccurate material

The repeated insertion of unsourced and inaccurate polemical material needs to stop. This edit seems utterly inappropriate, but it is continually reinserted by an IP. As far as I am aware, no serious source considers abortion under the heading of "perinatal mortality". The leading causes of perinatal mortality in developed countries are generally understood to be congenital karyotypic anomalies, growth restriction, and maternal medical diseases. Could we see a source to support the assertions being made by the IP, per site policy? MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Congenital karyotypic anomalies? Now I have to do some homework I see. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Important reference missing?

In an interview with Justice Ginsburg in 2009, there is a brief discussion of the case of STRUCK v. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, to which I find no reference on Wikiepdia. To me, this seems to have been an important case, which made it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and was on its way the SCOTUS when the Air Force changed the policy (rendering the case moot). Do others feel it should be referenced in this article or another on the subject? I don't know enough about it to write a stand-alone piece (and don't think it needs one, but I could be wrong.) HR Mitchell (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits by Yank

I don't see any way they could be considered helpful or constructive. He added no no sources, shoved stuff around to angle it towards his POV, and. especially, pushed the "partial-birth" nonsense.

I've used up my 1RR, and don't do tagteaming. Help from others would be good. PhGustaf (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)