Talk:Legal protection of access to abortion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Law Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canada section requires update

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed a challenge to the access zone law. This gives freedom to other provinces to enact similar laws.--Ibis3 (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.vancouversun.com/news/gives+bubble+zone+protection+abortion+seekers+providers/1710294/story.html[reply]

Possible loophole?

This article does not mention if the "floating" part applies to airspace or aircraft. It seem that someone could legally buzz clinics with a private plane or send ad planes with offensive massages overhead. Please correct if this is not so and state it in the article.--Auric (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you have to be a ridiculously talented pilot to get within 50 feet of a person in your airplane without crashing into a building? (Further than that, the laws don't apply anyway.) The laws are typically about "approaching" a person, thus it doesn't matter if you approach them from above, below, or sideways. I don't think it's necessary to specify, though... Cngcng (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Meters?

Someone added the metric conversion to the "Buffer Zone" sections. But as the laws are written using feet and the laws are in countries that use feet, doesn't this seem odd/unnecessary? It does to me, but I didn't want to delete without input, as I'm brand new to Wikipedia editing! Cngcng (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-abortion and Abortion-rights vs Pro-life and Pro-choice

The AP recommends using the terms 'anti-abortion' and 'abortion rights' to describe sides of the Abortion debate without using political framing techniques. There is some contention with these terms, with anti-abortion side of the debate not wanting to be labelled as 'anti'. See United States pro-life movement#Controversies over terminology

Currently there are 4 articles:

It seems that for articles referring to the United States, the 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' terms are preferred, while international discussion more commonly uses the terms 'anti-abortion' and 'abortion rights'.

I've changed a link from pro-life to Anti-abortion movements as I think this reflects the AP terminology, which I think is correct for an article about international abortion access. If this is opposed, please discuss this on the talk page, don't just get into an edit war. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legal protection of access to abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061130201450/http://www.reproductiverights.org//st_clinic_picketing.html to http://www.reproductiverights.org/st_clinic_picketing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legal protection of access to abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]