Talk:Abortion in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Which polls to include

It got a little lost in the sauce earlier, but the Hill-Harris poll:

- In May 2019, a Hill-Harris poll found that a majority of American registered voters (55%) did not think fetal heartbeat abortion bans were too restrictive.

Right after

- A July 2018 poll indicated that only 28% of Americans wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, while 64% did not want the ruling to be overturned.

Is a weird thing to have without commentary. It isn't the case that, in one year, American support for Roe v Wade has gone from 64% to 45%. It's that abortion polling is tricky, and asking "do you think a fetal heartbeat abortion ban is too restrictive?" is a way to ask somebody about a ban that applies to embryos without heartbeats while making them imagine something very different. I don't think it's reasonable to present it without commentary. I suggest removing it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that it's a lot more specific than the other polls listed; it's clearly the odd one out. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What's more likely is that a large amount of Americans misunderstand Roe V Wade and think that it being overturned would mean abortion becomes fully illegal regardless of time period (as opposed to what Roe V Wade actually does, which is make abortion legality mandatory for the first 24 weeks). This is also indicated in the Gallup polls in the article that show over 70% of Americans support abortion being made illegal in the second trimester, despite the fact that Roe V Wade makes abortion legal during almost all of that time period. As other polls have also noted, roughly 50% of Americans identify as pro-life, so it's believable that a majority in some polls support fetal heartbeat bills as this poll found. Edit5001 (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me; I was previously taking you at your word that this poll was accurately represented. I've removed it now because the poll question actually didn't involve "fetal-heartbeat" bans at all, and offered a middle option between "too lenient" and "too restrictive" of "just right." 45% felt they were too restrictive; I'm willing to bet that if the poll had been asked as an 8-week ban the breakdown would have been the same. Regardless, I think that presenting it as "55% didn't think it was too restrictive" is a biased way to present it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The way it's presented is the exact wording of the title of the article. "Majority of Americans do not think fetal heartbeat bans are too restrictive" isn't something I wrote, it's what the source wrote. If you'd like to edit it to something like "a majority thought heartbeat bans were either just right or not restrictive enough", or mention the 6 week mark instead, you can do so, but the poll has a place in the article and the wording used is directly from the reliable source (The Hill is a well known politically fair outlet). Edit5001 (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, first off The Hill is not " a well known politically fair outlet": https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/media/jimmy-finkelstein-the-hill-ukraine/index.html]. Secondly, we never consider what the title calls a news story as they are sometimes worded to attract readers rather than properly reflect the information in the article or what the journalist wrote. I'd do question this poll. Gandydancer (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/ puts The Hill near the center on right/left bias. CNN, meanwhile, is on the noticeably left for bias. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

Anyway, I reworded the sentence describing the findings of the poll to more exactly meet the article text rather than the article headline. Edit5001 (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this poll while we discuss it and please do not return it without consensus. I strongly agree with what Tri has suggested. I do not agree with your position when you discuss what people likely think Roe v Wade means or much else you are suggesting here either. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you disagree? Just saying you disagree does not bring us one inch closer toward finding a compromise or consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please review Tri's post since I said I agree with him/her. There is no need for me to repeat what they said. Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to point up the topic of this subsection, I'll quote from WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" There is some slipperyness in there, but that is policy. There's some more guidance in there regarding relative presentation weight for viewpoints supported by sources which are mentioned. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, as is well know a poll can say anything the person that sets it up wants it to say. When one finds a poll that deviates so far from what other polls suggest, and remember there are numerous polls done all the time, that poll should be suspected of having wording that skewed the results. A poll that deviates so far from the others should not be used for our article which can do no more than to highlight all aspects of the abortion issue. We're not writing an entire book on the subject, after all. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Except the poll does not deviate much from all the other polls. ~50% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 40% say abortion shouldn't be legal in the first trimester according to Gallup polls. That increases to 72% by the second trimester. It's therefor not far fetched at all for a poll to find that a slim majority of voters either think 6 week abortion bans are just right or too lenient. Edit5001 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What??? 6 wks is just right or too lenient when Roe v Wade uses 24 wks (if I remember correctly) which poll after poll states the majority of Americans are in agreement with? Is there something I'm confused about here? Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The Gallup polls show that a majority of Americans do not support abortion being legal beyond the first trimester (12 weeks), despite Roe forcing it to be legal well into the second trimester (12-24 weeks). They also show that roughly half of Americans are pro-life (which we can only assume means they hold strict abortion law views). The Roe V Wade polls are actually the outliers here because they imply the average American has a far more permissive abortion stance than they actually report in all other polls. Edit5001 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

How can (according to Gallop in 2019 [1]) twice as many Americans want to keep Roe v Wade as to overturn it and around twice as many Americans believe that abortions should be allowed in the 1st trimester and yet the poll found that 40% were for the heartbeat bill while 58 opposed, about a 10 point difference, and on and on (according to Gallop). Again, for our short article about abortion in the U.S. we should stick only with polls that tended to more or less agree with one another and are very well known and even then it is not an easy decision. Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that a majority of Americans say they'd like abortion to be illegal in the second trimester (and beyond) while a majority simultaneously says they don't want Roe V Wade overturned suggests there's a noticeable number of Americans who fundamentally misunderstand what Roe V Wade means. They seem to think that the decision being overturned would result in a total abortion ban in the US, which is wrong. Edit5001 (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

1) No Original Research WP:OR. This means that your THEORY that Americans don't understand Roe v. Wade does not matter in these discussions here, unless you can find Reliable Sources that PROVE that. (Maybe Americans, 50% of which are male, misunderstand PREGNANCY and have little understanding of what trimesters are and when viability starts.)

2) There have probably been over 100 polls done on Americans' attitudes on Abortion in the last 10 years alone, we don't need to mention all of them and what each one found, or cherry-pick the ones which appear to support one point.

3) I agree that titles are written for conciseness to give an idea of what the article is about, (and sometimes as click-bait), and are not by any means the best way to phrase something.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

1) This person asked the question "Does this poll mean Americans switched their views on abortion in a year??" which isn't necessarily what these heartbeat/Gallup polls indicate. Please read the conversation in context. I have not said we should write in the article "Polls seem to indicate a sizable number of Americans misunderstand what Roe V Wade actually means.", I have just explained why the numbers in the poll I'm trying to add are legitimate.

2) This poll was one of the most recent I've seen and it covered a very particular issue (heartbeat laws). There's nothing cherry picked about it.

3) Yes, I accept that argument which is why I changed the wording of what the poll indicated from what the headline said. Edit5001 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

I have self-reverted a reversion I made that was in violation of WP:1RR. I felt that the student added information that was inaccurate, but I will leave it at community discretion to decide on keeping or removing since I've already used my revert for the day. Thanks and apologies, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Elysia (Wiki Ed), don't worry, it's clear you're acting in good faith. We can WP:IAR here. I restored the status quo ante, perhaps you can work with Rsrour to discuss before editing, or maybe choose a less contentious article. Guy (help!) 19:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Just chiming in to express support for Guy's revert (diff) to status quo ante, without prejudice to the student editor's good-faith efforts. Elysia, wrt 1RR you're good. Also, if you don't want to get templated yourself with a {{Ds/alert}} for abortion-related topics, you might want to add a {{Ds/aware}} on your Talk page for this topic. The codes are at {{Ds/topics/table}}. If you do, just make sure that you understand the warning for each code that you add, because if you declare awareness, you're held accountable for it. Ds/aware for abortion is code |ab. See the header on my user talk page for an example. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

New section

I am planning to reorganize the introduction to make it short and to the point as at the moment, there is too much information at the top. I do not plan on adding information other than changing a few words in sentences to make it flow better. I am just moving around information that is already present in the article. Rsrour (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rsrour I recommend you put your proposed changes on the talk page first before editign the article itself. That way, other editors can give feedback. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I am just shortening the introduction. I am keeping the first paragraph completely in tact and adding the first two sentences from the second paragraph to it. The other three paragraphs about Planned Parenthood v. Casey, number of abortions, and public opinion are being moved to their relevant sections and edited to fit. Only information that is being delete (which is very little) is information that is already present to prevent repetitiveness Rsrour (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rsrour, the introduction is known as the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the entire articles. Leads can be several paragraphs long. Given that this is a relatively long article, it makes sense that the lead should be a little longer. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense but I felt as if the lead included some information that was not required. However, I understand if my edits will be reverted to the original. Rsrour (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Right now it's extremely important that you not add anything else to the article. This is why articles like this are not good targets for new editors to work on. Also, the edits you're making aren't really copyedits since you're rearranging information and removing information. Copyedits are very small edits like fixing a grammatical or spelling error. Any time there's major reshuffling, it goes beyond basic copyediting and should be discussed on the talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rsrour, the main problem is that this is one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia, and reflects a fine balance between competing points of view. Any large scale edit not discussed and agreed in advance is likely to be reverted because it is perceived as slanting the content towards one "side". Right above this, you'll participation in debates by Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). You may find a perusal of their talk page and block log sobering.

Note also that we renamed our articles on "pro-life" and "pro-choice", as they are marketing terms - they are now at anti-abortion movement and abortion rights movement. We should avoid using the marketing terms per WP:EUPHEMISM/WP:WEASEL, though some "pro-life" people are genuinely pro-life (see consistent life ethic), most merely oppose abortion. Guy (help!) 18:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I am glad to see that there are at least a few true Scotsmen out there. Elizium23 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay I understand I will stop adding information. Rsrour (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

My plan for this article was to make minor edits as well as expand to the recently added section about the effect of the pandemic. I will not make any more edits. Rsrour (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rsrour, it is advisable to discuss every edit in advance. This article is really not a place for the inexperienced. Guy (help!) 19:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

history's after the 70ies does mention nothing but court decisions

Recently, i heared in usually very thrust-worthy source (non-us, no connection to abortion/religion) the theory that starting from the seventies the conservatives were/are using and twisting the abortion debate to ensure a large fraction of voters are locked into their party.

Naturally, I went to wp to fact check. But nothing, Nada, nix about the history of the political discussion. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2C60:CD00:24E6:445:490D:CDD2 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

To my knowledge, prior to ~ 1975 the Republican party supported abortion rights, and they saw it as an individual liberties issue. But then the official Republican party stance was changed about that time when the religious conservatives took over the party and made the party anti-abortion. I think we should include discussion of this, but I haven't had the time to find enough Reliable Sources WP:V to add that info. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Homeopathic "Journals" count as evidence?

I removed a sentence under the Rise of Anti-Abortion Legislation sub-section that states:

"Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates suggest between 20% and 25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion."

Except this "contemporary estimate" wasn't provided by any reasonable means whatsoever. The book itself reads:

"Among the physicians who ventured specific figures on abortion was Edwin M. Hale a leading spokesperson for homeopathic medicine at midcentury. In 1860 he revised and expanded a paper first written in the 1850s for the North American Journal of Homeopathy and published it under the title On the Homeopathic Treatment of Abortion. In that volume Hale "safely asserted that there is not one married female in ten who has not had an abortion, or at least attempted one!" In the nation as a whole he believed that every one in five pregnancies ended in abortion, a figure that he based primarily upon his own experience and his own practice in the Chicago area."

The author themselves provides an almost outright repudiation of this on page 74 of the same book:

"By far the most important source of evidence about the dramatic upsurge in abortion rates in the United States after 1840 may be found in the writings of American physicians. Physicians, especially regular physicians, were hardly impartial observers; indeed, they would be instrumental in shifting American abortion policy by the end of the century. Yet they were probably in a better position to assess abortion patterns in the United States than any other group. They were acutely interested in the phenomenon. They were trained observers with a respect for statistical accuracy."

Obviously a few things are wrong with using this piece of this source to justify the original statement I removed.

A. Homeopathy practitioners are not physicians.

B. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience and suggesting it involved a "respect for statistical accuracy" is fundamentally incorrect.

C. The statement from the pseudoscience peddler involves zero statistical analysis of any kind whatsoever, grandiose claims that they could not possibly logically make and a fundamental misunderstanding of basic causality.

Yet it counts as a sufficient piece of evidence for a 19th century estimate? Why would that be the case, compared to say, a snake-oil salesman, patent medicine salesman, or a faith healer in the same era making a guess?

It was removed with the "twinkle" tag which, insofar as I can tell, specifically says "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith." in Wikipedia:Twinkle.

SlowBrainEdits (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Skimming through those pages in the book, I think I agree with your conclusions here. Whatever Hale is quoted as believing in that book does not look to me like a reliable source for anything at all but the content of his own beliefs. As a side note, I think that line in WP:TWABUSE is misleading – I don't think the editor who reverted your edit's use of twinkle in this instance was inappropriate, they were just using it as an undo button basically. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So my take here is that the source MAY say this, but not on the pages available on the internet archive: (p76-77), - the reference lists p76-82. This source is NOT homeopathy, but a book by a history professor. "Contemporary estimates ... suggest" is not claiming that this comes from reliable accounting. WithOUT access to further pages of the book, I don't think this should be removed. You could instead add a "quote requested/needed" tag. Just because you (and I) don't have immediate access to this book doesn't mean that it is wrongly sumarized. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The book is freely available online, let me quote all the estimates they gave in the pages quoted (other than the one cited above):

• In the following year, 1867, Hale revised his 1860 estimate of one abortion for every five pregnancies sharply upward. In The Great Crime of the Nineteenth Century he declared "that two-thirds of the number of conceptions occurring in the United States... are destroyed criminally." The Great Crime, however, was written for the general public rather than for physicians and must properly be classified as propaganda
• A year later, in 1868, Horatio R. Storer and Franklin Fiske Heard published... their book "Criminal Abortion: Its Nature, Its Evidence, and Its Law"... Dr. Elisha Harris, the well-known public health reformer who was then serving as Registrar of Vital Statistics in New York City, supplied the most valuable data, and from them Storer and Heard reached their most important single conclusion: "The reported early abortions, of which the greater number of course escape registry, bear the ratio to the living births of 1 to 4.04 [in New York]], while elsewhere [in the world] they are only 1 in 78.5."
• Storer and Heard grabbed some data from some other states in a more ad hoc way, but it was according to the authors not convincing, though another physician maintained that their estimates were accurate for Iowa, too: The Storer and Heard ratio was substantiated by J. C. Stone of Burlington, Iowa, who read Criminal Abortion and wrote in 1871: "What is true of Massachusetts and New York is true in a greater or lesser degree of every state, and Iowa fills her quota of crime
• Dr. P. S. Haskell, in a report to the Medical Association of Maine, claimed that "not less than two thousand" abortions were performed in his state each year during the early 1870s According to the 1880 census, there were approximately 12,000 births per year in Maine at that time. Haskell was thus suggesting a ratio of one abortion for every six live births at minimum
• In 1878 physicians testifying in the closely watched murder trial of an abortionist in southern Illinois set the ratio at 25 percent of all pregnancies.
• Horace Knapp wrote in 1873, "There can be no doubt that more children are destroyed annually in their mother's womb than are born alive," and quoted the opinion of a Cincinnati Methodist minister that there was not a block in his city without a woman who had had an abortion and "thought it nothing."
• In Wisconsin the situation seemed even worse. According to the state medical society's report to AMA headquarters in 1879, "where one living child is born into the world, two are done away with by means of criminal abortion." The Wisconsin report was greater by a factor of two than any other medical estimate of the period, and can probably be discounted.
• Physicians in Michigan, according to a special committee of the Board of Health, were directly aware of "seventeen abortions to every hundred pregnancies," and were also convinced that at least "as many more... never come to the physician's knowledge, making 34 percent, or one-third of all [pregnancies] ending in [purposeful] miscarriage." (that is, they had data indicating 17/100, but doubled it to 34/100 for their estimate) ... A cautious Boston attorney, Everett W. Burdett, thought that the Michigan figures might be exaggerated and that "the true explanation" of the falling birthrate in his own state was "largely a matter of conjecture"

Other than Hale's, they are all state-level estimates done by physicians at the time, there are no modern estimates or national estimates (other than Hale) in the pages cited. From pages 83 to 85, it does go onto cite more modern estimates of the decline in birth rates at the time, and use that to see what they can infer about the abortion rate:

• The data are circumstantial to be sure, but striking nonetheless, especially when combined with the conclusions of modern demographers about population trends in other societies... The decline in American birthrates, of course, even during the 1840s and 1850s, cannot be attributed wholly or even primarily to the practice of abortion. Recent research makes clear the fact that contraceptive information was also being disseminated throughout the United States from the early 1830s through the end of the century... Yet the probability of very high abortion rates for several decades around midcentury cannot be dismissed, the advent of contraceptive techniques notwithstanding... regardless of the availability of early contraceptive techniques, abortion appears likely to have been, just as contemporaries [as in, the people in the 1800s] claimed it was, a quantitatively significant factor in the demographic transition to lower birthrates in the United States that was increasingly evident after 1840

All of this to say, there are no good estimates of the 19th century abortion rate. There are some state level estimates of abortion made by physicians in the 19th century, but the author acknowledges those estimates are "circumstantial to be sure, but striking nonetheless". The estimates quoted by physicians in the period ranged from around 15% to around 35% (there were actually two estimates as high as 50%, but the author seemed to discount them). I think what we can state here is that the abortion rate was high, compared to other periods, but there is no good estimate of the actual number. As a compromise I would even accept "15-35% but evidence is shaky", though that would be arguably be a kind of WP:OR-y reading of the actual book, wherein the author chooses not to make any definitive statements about the actual percentage.

I, by the way, am somewhat sure the original language of the text comes from a confusion/misreading of other sources, e.g. [2] But scholars estimate that between 20% and 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion before Roe v. Wade." ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the quotes!! I didn't know this was available online free (maybe we can add the link in the reference for this?).

We could make a non-OR statement (replace the current statement with this one), something like: "In James Mohr's 1978 history of abortion in the US, he found multiple recorded physicians' estimates of abortion rates during the 1800's being in the range of 15-35% of pregnancies." What do you think? ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverting the edit back to the original wording certainly seems incorrect here. We're certain that the estimate that it gives is entirely inaccurate in methodology.

"This source is NOT homeopathy, but a book by a history professor". I never said that Mohr's book was homeopathy... In fact I went out of my way to specifically quote the part of his book where it is obvious the original author is not the one who submitted the article to the homeopathy Journal. In my original edit of the article I also made it very clear that other quoted physicians from Mohr's book were from more reputable sources, however they were geographically isolated.

As to the suggestion ""Contemporary estimates ... suggest" is not claiming that this comes from reliable accounting." I don't understand what sort of justification this is for the inclusion of information that is obviously dubious, at best. I stated originally,

"Yet it counts as a sufficient piece of evidence for a 19th century estimate? Why would that be the case, compared to say, a snake-oil salesman, patent medicine salesman, or a faith healer in the same era making a guess?"

I think it's important to address why this would be the case. If it holds no assumption of being accurate in the least then what would possibly be the purpose of including it as opposed to any number of guesses from that time period? - SlowBrainEdits (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@SlowBrainEdits: I agree that we shouldn't go back to the original wording. Did you read my most recent reply to Volteer1's large post, just above your most recent post here? That has a new suggested wording: "In James Mohr's 1978 history of abortion in the US, he found multiple recorded physicians' estimates of abortion rates during the 1800's being in the range of 15-35% of pregnancies." ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Well to be clear when I say its "freely available online", I mean it kind of is but not really. Something like the sentence you wrote out there I'd be happy with. (Perhaps "around 15-35%", there was some slight rounding there when I quoted that number). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: I changed it similar to how you mentioned above. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Edits by IP, 20 Jan

The map was unsourced, so the IP had every right to challenge and remove it. If an "obvious fact" needs a citation then the correct action is to supply the citation, not remove the tag. And it's "regimen", not "regiment", according to proper definitions of words that we use on Wikipedia. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater in more ways than one. Elizium23 (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm reviewing my old edits. If you review the reverter's history prior to that you'll see that he was stalking and harassing me. His reverts here were revenge edits because I had "won" a previous interchange with him (exactly where I don't remember at this point). I did stand boldly against his aggression and false accusations on "my" talk page and I wasn't looking forward to having to follow through here. So, thanks for sticking up for an IP! 142.105.159.178 (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Texas law that went in force on September 1, 2021 Suggestion

Someone knowledgeable about the specifics should add it and the SCOTUS refusal of an emergency stay to the state-by-state section and the associated main article. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018, between 28 August 2018 and 20 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 98Dimeji.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kimiesha. Peer reviewers: Mensk123, Fahmida94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2020, between 21 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rsrour. Peer reviewers: Kenidevlin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2020 and 22 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rahmatullah.mehmood.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Abortion map Roe/Casey overturned

If Roe & Casey are overturned this year, shouldn’t we create a map on the legality of abortion? Would we want it to be like the “Abortion laws in the United States prior to Roe vs. Wade” map currently in the article, or would we want it to be much simpler: “legal upon request” and “legal only for certain circumstances”, (maybe even add a color or two for laws that are pending)? Would we want to add a map right after the SCOTUS ruling (if and only if they overturn Roe/Casey), or would we want to wait first for the complicated situation to die down? Prcc27 (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute in section: State-by-state legal status

A {{disputed}} tag was added to this section by this edir, removed by this edit (apparently inadvertantly) and restored by this edit, The relevant discussion is located here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility of maps

The following maps used in this entry lack a straightforward accessible equivalent for users who are blind, color-blind, or otherwise visually impaired:

• Lede: "Legality of abortion on request in the United States by gestational age" has alt text steering users to the relevant section linked in the caption, Abortion_in_the_United_States#State-by-state_legal_status, but that doesn't include a complete list by state and territory in alphabetical order.
• Abortion_in_the_United_States#Rise_of_anti-abortion_legislation: "Abortion laws in the U.S. before Roe" has alt= text, but its accessibility to a sighted but color-blind user is unclear. The abstract in the reference doesn't include equivalent information.
• Abortion_in_the_United_States#State-by-state_legal_status: "States in which the right to an abortion is protected, either through state law, a state supreme court ruling, or both" has no alt text, and may not be accessible to readers with some forms of color blindness either. The NYT article given as reference doesn't guarantee public, open access.
• Abortion_in_the_United_States#Abortion_financing: "State Medicaid coverage of medically necessary abortion services" now has a link to a relevant section short enough to readily provide that information.
• Abortion_in_the_United_States#Qualifying_requirements_for_abortion_providers: none of the 4 maps has alt text or an accessible in-entry equivalent, and may not be accessible to readers with some forms of color blindness either.

The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest/self promotional editing - concerning recent reverts

This edit: [3] added content that the editor @Dbellle: claims that she is the author of here [4].

In general, we prefer WP:SECONDARY sources, and seeing as we already have two sources: Washington Post, and CNN, and neither references her paper, I don't think her paper belongs in this article, and because it makes it sound like other states had the same motivation as Connecticut in outlawing abortion; when neither secondary sources even discuss the motivations of WHY Connecticut outlawed abortion and why others followed.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Dobbs case decided, Roe overturned

This article will need a sizable rework

Sources:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/6/24/23169567/roe-v-wade-decision-dobbs-supreme-court-2022

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3523884-supreme-court-strikes-down-roe-v-wade/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.133.222 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Mississippi on the map

Mississippi on the map is incorrectly Orange ( Legal to 20 weeks), although is should be red like Texas - Mississippi has passed Heartbeat law (cardiac activity). 67.170.255.241 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You need to provide a ref. Our primary source still shows it (and TN) at 20 weeks. Also, the place for that is the map talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: See here - Heartbeat bill#State laws - Mississippi is one of those Heartbeat law States (current status - Temporarily blocked by federal court). By the way, the Table must be updated because now those laws are not blocked anymore. P. S. Where is that Talk page of the map ? 67.170.255.241 (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you know it's not blocked any more? Even if you did, "not blocked" doesn't mean it's taken effect. You need a RS that it's taken effect. We can't write things based on what we imagine might be so.

For the talk page of the map, go to the map and click on 'more details' (takes you to Commons). — kwami (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Section on penalties for abortion by state?

I've decided to start a section in the article about the penalties for performing abortion by state where it has been banned. Could someone create one of those tables, please? I don't know how to. JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't know what to create for you, though. There are websites that will convert an Excel or HTML table to WP format. That might be the easiest way to go.

There are states threatening to prosecute a woman for murder if she travels out of state; don't know if that's actually the law anywhere. — kwami (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

That might fit better in Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state maybe adding 'Penalty' to the first table would be the most efficient. JeffUK (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Virginia on the map

Virginia is shown on the map as having no gestational limit, although the Wikipedia page for abortion in Virginia states that abortion is only legal until the 25th week of pregnancy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.206.232.154 (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

No good/consistent ref for that claim. (Guttmacher coverage is contradictory, as it has been for several states recently.) There are actually 2 gestational limits, but neither is a ban. The law gives different requirements for 1st, 2nd and 3rd-trimester abortions (for 3rd-trimester, a second doctor needs to be consulted), but AFAICT there is no mention of the 25th week and no ban-with-exceptions at any point. — kwami (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Change page name to ‘Abortion law in the United States’

What the subject says SandRand97 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. — kwami (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the new name change seems reasonable, given what is currently in the article. Brom20110101 (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that SandRand97 has moved the article without waiting for much discussion. I would have opposed the move on the following grounds:

1. Several sections of the article address topical areas unrelated to the nnew topic;
2. It is common practice in WP for such articles to name them Abortion law in [...];
3. Other Abortion law in [...] articles which exist are:

• Abortion law in the United States by state -- a list article about that topic;
• Abortion law in Mississippi -- a redirect to Abortion in Mississippi § Legislative history
• Abortion law in Spain -- a redirect to Abortion in Spain;
• Abortion law in Nepal -- a redirect to Abortion in Nepal.

I request that the article be moved back to Abortion in the United States. I suggest that a new section headed Legislative history be created, that information about that subtopic be localized to that section, and that the current article name be used for a redirect to that section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the move per your comment. Can someone set up a WP:RM for "Abortion law in the United States"? Endwise (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the difference between this article, and the others, is that the size of this article warrants it being split. i.e. we should have both Abortion Law in the US AND Abortion in the US. Those others do not require a split as they're small enough to contain both in a readable format JeffUK (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Abortion law in the United States would be a better title for the article. 90% of text is about legislation. I think it would be better to split it into 'Abortion in the United States' and 'Abortion Law in the United States'. 1. to include 'Statistics', 'Public Opinion', and 'Financing' and a summary of the legal position referring to the Abortion Law article as the main article, which would be everything else. If anyone agrees with this approach I can do a split proposal here? I might be more efficient to rename first, then split, just because most of the content ends up in the new article JeffUK (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with a split. I was thinking that it might be best to first collect content pertaining directly to legalities into a subtopic section about that and then do a WP:SS split as the second step of a two-step process, but I'm not opposed to a direct split. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove "War on Women"

Having a political slogan in the see also section is biased when the article is not about that slogan. DukeOfGrammar (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No. It’s a related article. The other “See also” articles are also political, such as the extremely false and misleading term “Heartbeat bill”, which is pushed by anti-abortion politicians despite the fact that it is scientifically inaccurate, as there is no fetus or heart. And sections of this article certainly are about what that slogan describes. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Texas, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Tennessee

In Texas, the limit is now at 6 weeks until the trigger ban takes place as the pre Roe ban was granted a restraining order.

In Wisconsin and West Virginia, there is no uncertainty, abortions are illegal due to a pre Roe ban

In Tennessee it is now 6 weeks as the law to 6 weeks is now allowed to go under effect https://eu.tennessean.com/story/news/2022/06/28/tn-abortion-law-tennessee-immediate-effect-heartbeat-ban-trigger-ban-roe-vs-wade-dobbs/7728670001/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.123.17 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You need a source for WI and WV. That's contradicted by Guttmacher.

Texas just updated per Guttmacher. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/west-virginias-only-abortion-clinic-stops-performing-abortions/3085426/

From NBC: "The state has an abortion ban law on the books that makes providing abortions a felony carrying three to 10 years of prison time. It’s unclear how the state will proceed on enforcement."

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/27/wisconsin-gov-vows-to-grant-clemency-to-doctors-charged-under-state-abortion-ban.html

From CNBC: "Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, vowed over the weekend to grant clemency to anyone charged under the state’s 1849 law banning most abortions. That law, enacted more than a century before Roe v. Wade, has remained on the books in the state and has technically retaken effect following the Supreme Court ruling Friday overturning the landmark case."\

Thanks guys

Tick tock goes the clock5 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The WV source isn't very convincing. They say (as of Jun24) "West Virginia currently bans abortion after the 20th week", which is what Guttmacher still says as of Jun28. It sounds like the clinic may have closed due to the danger that abortion might be illegal, but that doesn't mean it actually is illegal.

The WI source, from Jun27, clearly states that it's taken effect. So we have a conflict between that and Guttmacher. There's also the clemency issue, but that would seem to be moot.

So should WI maybe be black, against Guttmacher, and VI remain grey, since the news source contradicts itself? — kwami (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No doubt about Wisconsin being black, WV will be up to what source you want to believe. Seems no source truly knows what's going on. Thanks for your help regardless mate, appreciate your hard work keeping it up to date. <3

Tick tock goes the clock5 (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WI back to grey, per DA who says the law is unenforceable. We're coming back around to what Guttmacher's been saying all along, which makes me wonder if perhaps they know what they're talking about after all, or at least better than news broadcasts by people who don't know what they're talking about. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for WP:DUE, but that's not easy when making article assertions via an image. Perhaps stripey colors, with clarification and cites hidden in the image description page and possibly picked up in the image caption. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Problems with the map should really be held on the map's talk page on Commons rather than here. WP-en dominates, but there are other wikis. — kwami (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

travel to Mexico

Added a section, as this is increasingly relevant. (I haven't heard anything similar about Canada.) The Mexican Supreme Court decision seems to have changed definitions, so that the word "abortion" now only applies to 2nd and 3rd trimester, and anything in the first trimester is "terminating a pregnancy". Also, "pregnancy" is defined from implantation, as in Massachusetts, so the Mexican states with 12-week allowances are equivalent to US states with 15 (or Mass. at 12). Contradictory claims of 12 weeks in some states and 13 in others appear, on double checking, to just be a matter of misinterpreting the wording: legal during first 12 weeks = legal before 13 weeks.

States such as Nuevo Leon where abortion remains illegal under state law are nonetheless catering to Americans, without risk of prosecution; the ban is not being enforced due to the Supreme Court decision. (In Mexico, unlike the US, state law doesn't change just because the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.) I don't know if that's true of all such states, but AFAICT abortion is now legal nationwide.

It may be only in the 1st trimester that abortions aren't prosecuted; I haven't seen any info on that. However, abortions are legal in case of rape in all states, and there doesn't seem to be is no time limit on those. It would appear that clinics had been providing abortions under the rape exemption for some time before the SC ruling, relying solely on the word of the woman (unlike in the US, where a police report is required). But I haven't heard specifically about Usonians past their 1st trimester traveling to Mexico for an abortion. [Oh, the SC abolished time limits in cases of rape in 2021.[5]] — kwami (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Illegal in the third trimester Legal at any stage colors are too similar

The Illegal in the third trimester and the Legal at any stage colors are too similar 71.241.134.201 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

They're quite distinct. There are only so many colors to play with. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss that. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

They are too similar, but there are not many colors left that make sense. Need to discuss it at Commons further 24.118.164.14 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what about Yellow? Where is yellow (or gold)? 24.118.164.14 (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Yellow means "caution", so it wouldn't be appropriate for the most liberal laws.

As for light vs dark green, there's effectively no difference: hardly any abortions are ever provided this late except in medical emergencies (doctors still have to answer to the medical ethics board, regardless of the law), so the fact that Alaska doesn't mandate a medical emergency but Massachusetts does is unlikely to make any difference. Basically it's just cover for the politicians: they can say "we've banned late-term abortions" even if it won't make any difference on the number of late-term abortions being performed. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Pre-Roe: no absolute bans?

We claimed that the red states in the pre-Roe map had absolute bans on abortion. However Texas, one of those states, did have a death exemption.[6] I don't have access to the original data, but I suspect this was simply a misunderstanding due to poor wording of the map legend: yellow states have exemptions for health, rape, damaged fetus, etc.; red states do not. The other red states were presumably like Texas, with an exemption only for risk of death, but this should be double checked. — kwami (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

Indiana just passed a total Abortion ban, the map should be edited to reflect that 100.33.35.212 (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't total, there are some special limited cases. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/06/indiana-assembly-passes-anti-abortion-bill-sends-it-to-governor 171.4.251.48 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The Indiana near-total abortion ban will not go into effect until September 15, 2022 (see here: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/indiana-house-passes-abortion-ban-sends-senate-88006107). The first map shows the current state of affairs, not how things will be in the future. Also, topics related to the first map would be better shared on the Commons, where there is an ongoing discussion about that map (see here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Gestational_limits_for_elective_abortion_in_the_United_States.svg). Brom20110101 (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: per Brom20110101. --Ferien (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2022

"Its determination was generally at the discretion o the pregnant woman, [...]" This statement in the history section (1st subsection, 4th header) misspells "of" as "o". As such, change it from "o" to "of". 2607:FEA8:A3C0:7280:3CB5:4248:B635:C758 (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Endwise (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The "Penalties by state" section is misleading

The chart which begins the "Penalties by state" section is misleading. The column labeled "Sentence" has "None" for several states (AL, LA, MO, OK, TX, TN, MS, ND). It gives the impression that women who get illegal abortions in these states, or who induce their own abortions, face no risk of being convicted of a crime and sentenced, possibly to prison time, for doing so.

In fact, however, women in these states are only safe from being arrested, charged, and/or punished, by the newly-passed or newly-constitutional restrictions against abortion. We do not know yet whether laws other than the specific restrictions on abortion can be used to prosecute women who get abortions in these states.

For instance, many states have laws against pregnant women drinking alcohol or indulging in any activity which might endanger their fetuses, or which enhance the penalties for using illegal drugs when the user is pregnant. In some states these laws may be used to prosecute women who come to the attention of law-enforcement after trying to self-abort and suffering complications, or after successfully self-aborting.

Additionally, women who obtain illegal abortions, or who self-abort, can face the risk of prosecution for other related crimes, such as illegally procuring abortifacient medications, or improperly disposing of the aborted fetus (and associated umbilical or placental tissue), or, of failing to report the death of a person (ie of the aborted fetus). Recent events in several states show that these concerns are not only theoretical.

None of these issues are even close to being resolved in state jurisprudence. But a casual or uninformed reader, looking at the chart, might easily come away with the false impression that women who get illegal abortions in these "None" states don't have to worry about consequences from law-enforcement. That would be a grave disservice to these readers!

IMHO, the section should be modified, either by changing the heading of that column of the chart ("Sentence"), or by including a caveat just before the chart, to specify that "Sentence" only refers to the sentence allowed under the state's restriction or ban against abortion, not to sentences which might incur by violating other laws in connection with an abortion.

Does anyone have any comments, suggestions, or arguments about this? Let the consensus-seeking begin! Meanwhile, I'll try to compose a first-draft beginning addition to the section. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have added some material (with references) which I hope will fix, or at least reduce, the problem of the misleading "None"-entries. Feel free to make it nicer!

Another possibility would be to delete the chart altogether. Changes to abortion law and abortion-related jurisprudence are still in progress, and the chart may have to be modified so often that it would require regular updates, and might even violate WP:NOTNEWS.

Has anyone any thoughts, ideas, suggestions, or preferences about this? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Abortion in Texas has an RFC

Abortion in Texas has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

two states in the current 13 list seem possibly inappropriate

I just happened to notice that most of the listings in the list of 13, describe "an abortion", but two, Indiana and West Virginia, have "Illegal abortion"

clarification could be added as to whether or not each mean,

1 an-implied,.. abortions-are-illegal, and this relates to them-all, OR

2 SPECIFICALLY-illegally-performed ones, in-contrast with whatever parallel law/regulations which simultaneously makes room for them in some circumstances/cases.

If the language used, is IMPLYING legal-abortions, then there'd have to be at least remaining inclusions under federal law, that the local state law, does not have it's own clashing laws against-the-federal.

Either way, it'd be less than as-simple-as the other 11, if either DO allow some, even if only exceptionally.

Maybe add them at the end of the 11, as highly-restricted, if that's the case? 120.21.167.200 (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

-Request to remove the paragraph which suggests, through incomplete and misleading polling data, that 99 percent of all women who have had an abortion feel right about their decision, and feel no remorse or regret.

-Request to remove the paragraph which states that abortion has no affect on the mental health on the woman in early trimester. USAD1776 (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

Please add the line that Abortion is illegal in US. Rrohra007 (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. if i'm reading the lede right (note that I'm not versed in US law nor even live in the US), legality of abortion seems to be decided on a state level instead of just banned in the whole country outright as that line implies. 💜  melecie  talk - 09:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Intro

At the bottom of the Introduction to the page, it says "Alabama, West Virginia, etc. explicitly have no right to an abortion in their constitutions". That's not true. They have abortion bans in the constitutions. They don't say "There is no right to an abortion here". This language needs to be changed. It makes it sounds like there's nothing written in those constitutions. They have bans on abortion. If you wanted even more balanced language, you could say some states have the right to an abortion, and others have the right to life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:300:9AE0:C8F6:1C15:19EA:9198 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Map needs update

The map is outdated 71.173.75.97 (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CJ-Moki (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Wisconsin should be black.

Abortion in Wisconsin is illegal, so it should be black or have a black outline.[7][8][9] Zyxrq (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your sources don't support your claim. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

what are you talking about? It supports that the map should be black or have a black outline.Zyxrq (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to cite something specific, because what I read in the 2nd and 3rd sources (I can't access the 1st) coincides with what we currently say. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong map description

"Colored dots inside borders indicates that a more stringent restriction or ban, corresponding to the key, is blocked by the courts (as of March 18, 2023)."- map leading the article.

There are no colored dots, just colored borders. This needs to be adjusted. Also, the link for the media organization that mentioned this article at the top of this talk page no longer works. To me that website seems like a glorified blog and the note seems like self promotion, but if it's important to keep it then perhaps an Internet Archive link would be more appropriate. 74.135.64.31 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Inadequate Language Overstating a Particular View

"Abortion has existed in North America since the European colonization of the Americas, was a fairly common practice, and was not always illegal or controversial. Until the 19th century, abortion was legal under common law, and only after quickening it was not allowed." This is the beginning of the Early history and rise of anti-abortion legislation section, and I feel it is an overstatement of the sources provided in a way not in-line with a commitment to impartiality. Impartial is not "neutral," but not to overstate one's point.

Four sources are used in the above text, footnotes 21-24, and nearly all are ploblematic if they are to make such a strong statement on the widespread and accepted nature of abortion. The ones behind a paywall will be addressed by the attached abstract.

[21]: Acevedo, Zachary P. V. (Summer 1979). "Abortion in early America". Women Health. 4 (2): 159–167. doi:10.1300/J013v04n02_05. PMID 10297561 (Paywall)

-The abstract claims women having traditional ways of having an abortion is the same as societal acceptance of the practice, "The point is made that abortion is not simply a 'now issue' ... it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present".

-While this might apply to the American Indian tribes, a fact I cannot double check since I can't see the article itself, the intro sentence claims this applies to the European settlers as well, when they would have legal and ecclesial laws against it. This is a point made latter in the paragraph itself in reference to the legal opinions or the time. Clearly, abortion was talked about in the context of law in European settlers, yet not as an accepted tradition in soceity as claimed by this source.

[22]: Reagan, Leslie J. (2022) [1997]. When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine and the Law in the United States, 1867–1973 (1st ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520387416. (Paywall) [23]: Blakemore, Erin (May 22, 2022). "The complex early history of abortion in the United States". National Geographic. Retrieved July 26, 2022.(Paywall)

- I only have access to the quote chose by the author of this page from the NATGEO site, but the criticism applies to both the book and the article.

-The specific claim being made is, "[Abortion] was a fairly common practice, and was not always illegal or controversial." Again, the paragraph itself notes how the law made abortion illegal. Moreover, the weasel words from the NATGEO article present in the footnote, "most scholars who have investigated," which doesn't address the idea that of how this analysis is done nor if the existance of certain practices like hidden abortion manuals mean wider society accepted the pratice.

- Obviously, the article on NATGEO might go into the nuances of the topic, but there is no way it can subtanciate the claim that abortion was legal and uncontrovertial without playing into some of the liguistic games of footnote 24.

[24]: Wilson, Jacque (January 22, 2013). "Before and after Roe v. Wade". CNN. Retrieved May 9, 2022.

- "Until the 19th century, abortion was legal under common law, and only after quickening it was not allowed." If abortion is said to be mearly the end of a pregnancy pre-natally, then the debate on when is it okay to end an abortion rests on whether it is murder. If so, what is quickening? The paragraph itself says, "Quickening indicates the start of fetal movements," but that is a very technical definition. The reason why it mattered is that was the way one would define when the fetus came to life in the womb, drawing from Greek philosophy.

- Suddenly, it's not a matter an arbitary month limit set by law, but whether one can see it as a human organism under the law. This idea is wholly absent from this paragraph, for I suspect is an oversight. While one can argue whether the law allowed for prequickening abortions, it doesn't mean there was a protected right to end your prenancy, as the language implies. Rather, the law only started protecting the one in the womb after quickening, from the law's perspective.

All of this is more of a bias which leads to an oversimplification of the history of Abortion in the US. It seems more than likely abortion was a factor of life in colonial america, that people let it happen without comment and that it was unrestricted prior to quickening. Yet, this is not the same thing as asserting the high emotional, pious americans individually and culturally allowed abortion on the level of post-War Europe, which seems to be the implication of the original language. A revision of the first three lines of this section might be, "Abortion, as a practice, would not have been unknown in the colonies. Though some ecclesial authors would decry it, women in the growing US had ways of ending their pregnancy if they didn't want to adhere to those voices. In fact, it wasn't until the 19th century that pre-quicking abortions would be rendered illegal in many states. Prior to that development, abortion would be illegal after the baby was deemed alive, called quickening." I tried using the same sources from the bits I was able to read from them, but I don't find CNN nor NATGEO good sources to begin with.

If I'm missing something, let me know. Paxromana42 (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand your issue with the text as it currently stands, you want to rephrase it but why? XeCyranium (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Map update needed soon: Indiana

Indiana needs to be colored in black before Aug. 1, when their abortion ban is set to take effect. [10] Chutyo (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Changing the map "before" the date the changes to the state's law become effective would not be appropriate. Any change to the map can be made on (or after) the Aug 1 effective date.

.

2) Per the map key, black = illegal

.

This change would not be appropriate, either.

.

Provisions of the Senate Enrolled Act Indiana's state legislature enacted in 2022 that become effective August 1, 2023 "bans" clinic providers.

.

The lighter shade of blue = "legal before viability" and is most consistent with the specific language in the pending changes to Indiana's law.

.

However, Indiana's new law states "before the earlier of viability of the fetus or

twenty (20) weeks postfertilization" - making the current color (22 weeks LMP) the most accurate reflection of the law (in terms of presumptions fertilization generally occurs 2 weeks following last menstrual period/LMP). This is a problem with the map key.

https://iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/122/2022ss1/senate/bills/SB0001/SB0001.06.ENRH.pdf

.

Pimprncess (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)