Jump to content

Talk:United States abortion-rights movement/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 21 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close and addition to here EveryoneAlmost everyone, except Beyond My ken, who !voted here also !voted in the corresponding move at Pro-life with the same support/oppose, with similar/identical rationales; it appears quite clear that people want to move both or neither, so it doesn't make sense to have two parallel moves on the same issue; I'll be adding this to the other move, pinging everyone at that discussione, and relisting it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing. They are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while attempting to define their opposition in the worst possible light.

and

The Associated Press and Reuters encourage journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion", which they see as neutral.

(see AP stylebook on "abortion").

  • In view of WP:GLOBAL it should be noted that many feminists of color and non-U.S.-based feminists have objected to the pro-choice term and much prefer such terms as abortion rights or reproductive health rights. See:
    • Nelson, Jennifer (2003). Women of Color and the Reproductive Rights Movement. New York University Press. ISBN 9780814758274.;
    • Silliman, Jael; Fried, Marlene Gerber; Ross, Loretta; Gutierrez, Elena R. (2004). Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice. South End Press. ISBN 9780896087293.;
    • Ginsburg, Faye D.; Rapp, Rayna (1995). Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520089143.; and
    • Hartmann, Betsy (1995). Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control. South End Press. ISBN 9780896084919..NightHeron (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That's less precise, because reproductive rights can mean different things to different people. For example, Margaret Sanger would be considered a leading advocate of reproductive rights, but she did not advocate for legalization of abortion.NightHeron (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, but in this case, less precision is a virtue because "pro-choice" does not necessarily mean "pro-abortion". I personally know people who are strongly in favor of womens' reproductive rights, but work hard to make abortions unnecessary. They are indeed pro-choice, but oppose abortions morally, but not legally. This article should include coverage of people like that, and if it was converted to "pro-abortion" is would not. For this reasons, and others, I oppose the move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The move being proposed is not to "pro-abortion," which would be inappropriate for precisely the reason you give. What's being discussed is changing "pro-choice" to "abortion rights." That would include people who support the legal right to an abortion, but who wish to reduce the incidence of abortion and would never have one themselves.NightHeron (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (but with hyphen: abortion-rights movement). No need to use a politically polemical term; the Associated Press and the vast majority of stylebooks discourage "pro-life"/"pro-choice" and other politicized phrases. Neutralitytalk 04:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced by Google Ngram results which continue to show a dominating preference in literature for the current title. WP doesn't follow any outside stylebook, if the AP's changes are reflective of the wide society, then evidence will shift and we can look at this ins a few years. -- Netoholic @ 01:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The basic issue is NPOV, which is a pillar of Wikipedia. The COMMMONNAME policy is not, and in any case it's irrelevant here, since if you read WP:COMMONNAME, you'll see that both "pro-choice" and "abortion rights" satisfy it because both are easily recognized and understood. WP:COMMONNAME does not say that the title should be the one that has the most citations somewhere; and COMMONNAME cannot be used to justify a title that, in the words of the article itself, is an example of political framing, that is, clearly in violation of NPOV.NightHeron (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Proper application of WP:NPOV is sometimes to just step away from the public debate and just call things by their most WP:COMMONNAME, as demonstrated by the evidence. Doing so is dispassionately objective, helpful to readers, and is consistent with the existing base of human knowledge. What's proceeded above are attempts to convince opposing sides based on factors which are drenched in POV, sometimes bordering on WP:ADVOCACY. -- Netoholic @ 09:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • All the names being discussed here are extremely common. Some are more common in one setting than in another. The proper application of NPOV can hardly be to accept two blatantly self-promotional names, just because by some measures (but not others) they have been used slightly more often than neutral terms that are equally well-understood. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @NightHeron: Your original nomination statement at the top of this section is considered your "vote" and to repeat here is prohibited per WP:DISCUSSAFD "nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line" please revert. – Lionel(talk) 05:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I changed it. My apologies, I didn't know that.NightHeron (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion: If going purely by the guidelines outlined in WP:TITLE, there is no question that this article should be renamed to United States abortion rights movement between the two options listed in the move request. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States pro-life movement which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

I'm removing a sentence that claims that the scientific literature uses such terms as "unborn child" for the embryo/fetus that's destroyed in an abortion. That sentence itself is an example of political spin, because it confuses the use of the term for a fetus that is near birth (i.e., viable) with its use for an embryo in the 1st trimester when almost all legal abortions (>90%) occur. The latter use is not in the scientific literature, but is in the political (anti-abortion) literature. NightHeron (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the following sources again. The terms "unborn child" or "unborn baby" are applied to the embryo as well.
"In humans the term is applied to the unborn child until the end of the seventh week following conception; from the eighth week the unborn child is called a fetus."
"Embryo | human and animal". Encyclopedia Britannica.
"Zika Virus causes congenital Zika syndrome(CZS) following transmission of the virus from an infected mother to her unborn child. Infections late in the first trimester (7 to 12 weeks) are the most likely to harm the fetus, although abnormalities have been observed following infections up to 18 weeks." (p. 133)
T.W. Sadler (2018). Langman's medical embryology (14th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 9781496383907.
Additional sources:
"The most serious complication from rubella infection is the harm it can cause a pregnant woman’s unborn baby.... Serious birth defects are more common if a woman is infected early in her pregnancy, especially in the first trimester (first 12 weeks)."
"Rubella vaccine". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
"For the first trimester ultrasound, a health care provider will move an ultrasound device over your abdomen. The device uses sound waves to look at your unborn baby. Your provider will check for thickness at the back of your baby's neck, which is a sign of Down syndrome."
Down Syndrome Tests: MedlinePlus Lab Test Information. medlineplus.gov --Lancet.lancet (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
That is not standard terminology in the scientific literature. You are correct that there are exceptional situations where those terms might appear, particularly in passages that are warning pregnant women or their doctors about dangers early in pregnancy (such as measles or zika) that will likely cause the birth of an unhealthy baby. Perhaps we can compromise by making the wording of the sentence more accurate, for example: "These terms occasionally occur in the scientific literature, particularly when discussing dangers in pregnancy that may lead to future birth defects."
Well, I agree, these terms only occasionally appear in the scientific literature, but they are used in many other contexts (e.g. in the Encyclopedia Britannica). Is there a need to add this part "particularly when discussing dangers in pregnancy that may lead to future birth defects"? I would agree in both cases. --Lancet.lancet (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The topic of the article is abortion, so without a qualifying phrase the reader would be likely to assume, because of the context, that your sources show that the scientific literature uses the terms in the context of abortion. This would be misleading ("political spin"). Even with the qualifying phrase, it's possible that some editors will object to the sentence on the grounds of irrelevancy (since the sources have nothing to do with abortion) or cherry-picking (arguing that the vast, vast majority of scientific sources do not use those terms, see WP:UNDUE). So obviously I can't promise that other editors won't remove the compromise version that I suggested. But at least that version is an improvement, so if you put in that version of the sentence, I won't remove it. NightHeron (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
In the article is written "Other examples of political framing frequently employed in this context are: "unborn baby", "unborn child", and "pre-born child". referring here, where is written "Rather than use scientific descriptions such as fetus or embryo, many pro-life advocates consistently use "baby," "unborn baby," "unborn child," or even "pre-born child.", which is not quite right, and misleading too, because this terms are also scientific descriptions (at least they are not incorrect), but scientist usually avoid use such terms to avoid ethical or moral aspects of the abortion.
The topic is "Terminology controversy" of abortion, so I think it will be proper to add that sentence, and I will add the version which you have suggested.--Lancet.lancet (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad you accept the version I suggested of the sentence. I do not agree that there's anything wrong with the sentences you quote from the article and the cited source. Terms such as "unborn baby" are not scientific terms, even though a medical professional might use such a term, for example, when talking to a pregnant woman and trying to convince her to avoid certain risks. The fact that a doctor or a scientific publication might use a certain term on rare occasion does not make it a scientific term. The sentences you quote are not misleading. NightHeron (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
My point is that the terms "unborn child" or "unborn baby" are not scientifically incorrect, although they are not common or standard scientific terms. I've brought some examples that these terms are not only used when a medical professional tries to convince a pregnant women to avoid certain risks.
Did the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (see the definition of "embryo") use non-scientific terms?
T.W. Sadler (2018). Langman's medical embryology (14th ed.) is a medical textbook, which is not intended for pregnant women.
Do pregnant women do Down Syndrome Tests to avoid certain risks? Some women do such tests to terminate their pregnancy. E.g. 2017 statistics on abortion from England and Wales (655 abortions (0.34%) only for Down syndrome)
Finding examples on which to hang a claim is original research, and not appropriate to use in Wikipedia. You would need a reliable third-party source (and WP:MEDRS may apply here) that claims that these terms are in common use in such literature. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Added: also, none of the examples appear to be discussing abortion, so the applicability to an abortion discussion even more needs a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I've not claimed that "these terms are in common use in such literature", I've just mentioned that these terms occasionally occur in the scientific literature. And I've provided enough sources to make a such claim. (If it is not enough, then search and find additional several hundreds examples (MedlinePlus) Also search at official websites of CDC, FDA, AAP or at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).
WP:MEDRS A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate or graduate level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are examples of tertiary sources.
I've brought some examples from a medical textbook (Langman's medical embryology (14th ed.)) and from Encyclopaedia Britannica (see the definition of "embryo") which is one of the most reliable encyclopedias.
It's not about a research so the polices about original research are irrelevant.
They shouldn't discuss abortion, the topic is the terminology so it's proper to mention that these terms occasionally occur in the scientific literature --Lancet.lancet (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I've provided enough sources to make a such claim. Except that the claim that you make is not in any of the sources you are citing; the claim is yours, not theirs. That is, in Wikipedia terms, original research. We are not here to document your claims. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, the polices about original research are not relevant to the this issue, the section is terminology. I've just mentioned that these terms occasionally occur (there are some examples) in the scientific literature, and my sources are relevant to this sentence. To support my argument is enough to provide some examples from reliable sources, as I've done (though there are several hundred/thousand examples). If we discuss the terminology of this issue, this (Other examples of political framing frequently employed in this context are: "unborn baby", "unborn child", and "pre-born child") would be unilateral and misleading statement, so it is proper to add that these terms occasionally occur in the scientific literature.--Lancet.lancet (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Saying that the policies do not apply to what your doing does not make the policies stop applying to what you do. Our policies on original research do not just apply to things labeled as research, they apply to the entire article. You are making a claim that is not in the sources. You even just referred to the material you are adding as "my argument". We are not here to document your argument, we are here to restate what reliable sources say. You have not provided a reliable source that makes the claim you are making. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I should not write my argument, as it is a fact. Don't you agree that these terms (occasionally) occur in the scientific literature? There is no need to represent another source which would claim that these terms appear in the scientific literature, as it is obvious. These terms are not incorrect when they are used in the descriptive meaning.
It is clear from this selective presentation from the OED that opponents of abortion cannot fairly be criticized for using ‘unborn child’ descriptively, because such a descriptive use is consistent with the long and established historical scope of reference of ‘child’. It is consistent with historical usage to use ‘unborn child’ now in the same descriptive way that ‘with child’ was used in the past. source.--Lancet.lancet (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
If it is a fact, then you should find a source that states that fact. To quote WP:OR, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. You are concocting a general statement, based on sources none of which make that statement, and none of which show direct relevance to the article topic. If this piece of information is of note for the topic of the US abortion rights movement, then you should be able to find it mention in some reliable source on that topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Lancet, it is insufficient to simply cite a couple of random search results to "counter" sources that are specifically about language framing. This is clearly OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course it will be insufficient, and that's why I've added some examples from reliable sources (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica), which clearly showed that these terms (occasionally) occur in the scientific literature, you just ignored that. Ok, I won't argue anymore (although don't agree with you), but I think it's appropriate to add this sentence (which obviously isn't OR): "However, the descriptive use of the term "unborn child" is consistent with the long and established historical scope of reference of ‘child’. It is consistent with historical usage to use ‘unborn child’ now in the same descriptive way that ‘with child’ was used in the past." source--Lancet.lancet (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
That link just points to an abstract, which does not make the claim that your making. Do you happen to have a link to the full article that could be accessed in some way for free, so that we might verify your claims as to what it says? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm using Sci-Hub--Lancet.lancet (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Ach, I'd prefer to avoid using pirate sites. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

And looking at the whole section... the whole Terminology section should be deleted or drastically reworked, because it is not about the abortion rights movement in specific; it is about the debate, and the phrasing of the debate, but that misses the mark of the focus of this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2019‎

Some, several

Reverted "several who support" back to "some who support" because the latter is better English. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed stats

@Avatar317: The source for the PDF is the Guttmacher Institute, even if it's hosted on the "Family Life" site. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I question the relevancy of those statistics to this page; while they may well be relevant to Abortion in the United States, this is a page specifically about a movement, with statistics specifically in the section about the history of the movement... and those stats tell us nothing about the movement nor, being presented as the current situation, anything about history. The facts being cited might be usable by someone seeking to support abortion rights, but they are not presented in a way that reflects their impact on the movement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Roscelese: @Hugue008: So the link points to a COPYRIGHTED file, taken from Guttmacher without attribution? Even if Guttmacher allows open re-use of their materials, you have no guarantee that something re-hosted on another site has not been altered. Point to the data on the Guttmacher site. If you read about sourcing and citations, it is NEVER ok to use something like this. If it is unavailble on Guttmacher today (the data is now 11 years old) it might be available on the Internet Archive (archive.org), which is considered a trusted site, or Reliable Source WP:RS Cheers ---Avatar317(talk) 21:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Hugue008: (Thanks for your attempted contributions!!) Additionally, I agree that many of these additions are irrelevant, and the only reason I didn't remove those also is that this is a student editor adding those, and that person needs to be made aware of the exact things editor Nat Gertler said above, which I agree with. The "pregnancy is 14x more dangerous than abortion" is already in the second paragraph of the lead of the Abortion article, and also covered in the "Safety of abortions" section in the Abortion_in_the_United_States article. THIS article is about the movement. The type of stats you found, if not already in the AitUS article, could be added if you can find good sources. Thanks! ---Avatar317(talk) 22:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Jane Roe Pic

@Hugue008: The picture of Jane Roe you added would be a FANTASTIC addition to this article, but without proof that it isn't copyrighted, it will automatically be removed from where you uploaded it. If you could find a pic like this that meets Wikipedia's policy on using freely available materials, than it would be GREAT to have as the first picture in this article.---Avatar317(talk) 22:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Description added

Per this edit, I think this is a useful description which might help explain some of the controversy involved in the movement. Because it is a disservice to use sanitized, shall I say, whitewashed, language to describe such a procedure, when both sides are actively and stridently opposed to each other. I would say it almost looks like we have something to hide. Elizium23 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, My concern with this is that such a prolonged and technical description is probably WP:UNDUE. Given we link to the abortion article in the same sentence, it feels unnecessary. Interested in other viewpoints, though. Best, Darren-M talk 22:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
That's bizarre: abortion procedures are described in detail in lots of RS, a sentence about it is hardly undue at all. I think we owe readers an accurate description in this article which centers on the controversy of the very act. Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] @Elizium23: Thanks for the message on my talk-page. That text does not belong in this article, and in the lead it would read like anti-abortion propaganda. However, the first sentence of the article Abortion does briefly describe what an abortion involves in medical terms. In the main body of that article there's specific information about medical and surgical abortions. The article Intact dilation and extraction gives medical details about late abortions. No one's trying to "hide" or "sanitize" or "whitewash" anything. NightHeron (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
NightHeron, I disagree that it would be propaganda, being that it is an accurate depiction of what happens during the procedure?
Anyway, I just wanted to redirect the focus to discussion here, rather than edit-warring, because this is not blatant vandalism, it is a good-faith attempt at improving the article, and we need to treat it that way and build consensus, whether it is for or against its inclusion. Elizium23 (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Elizium23 We can discuss any text you want to discuss. I would also be opposed to inserting propaganda from the abortions-rights POV, for example, putting in the lead something about how the movement wants to prevent the agonizing death of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy who was denied an abortion. NightHeron (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that is a fair analogue, being that your text has an appeal to pathos with emotionally-charged language, and at its heart, isn't actually true, when it is completely true that to perform an abortion, the doctor must violently end the life of the fetus, sometimes with scissors to the base of the spinal column, then dismember the fetus and extract each fetus bit out of the uterus, reassembling the baby to ensure that no bits are left that could cause sepsis, and actual agonizing death, to the mother. This kind of thing is strictly evidence-based. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, then try this: wants to prevent the agonizing death of a desperate woman who was denied a safe abortion and resorted to a back-alley botched abortion. BTW, ectopic pregnancies are very dangerous for the woman and virtually never produce a live birth; that's not an exaggeration. NightHeron (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
NightHeron, what do ectopic pregnancies have to do with the proposed wording? Elizium23 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It's just one example of why abortion rights advocates might feel very strongly opposed to indiscriminately denying abortion to all women. You claimed that there's a case for including the description from an anti-abortion POV of what an abortion involves in order to "help explain some of the controversy". Similarly, examples of the needless death of women denied abortions could be used to show why some people on the other side feel strongly. But neither belongs in this article, especially not in the lead. NightHeron (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
This point by NightHeron is well-made, and I agree with it. Darren-M talk 09:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I also agree with NightHeron and Darren-M, and would add the statement I made on my most recent reversion: "Termination of a pregnancy is UNDERSTOOD to mean that the fetus/embryo is not delivered to live as a pre-term birth." No normal English speakers say that a "pregnancy has been terminated" when the woman gives birth; childbirth is technically also the end of a pregnancy, but no one ever talks about it that way.---Avatar317(talk) 22:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

New large additions

@Haydenh22: You just added two large sections to the article, being bold as one should be in editing. However, I've done some dialing back on what you added, and some more may be needed.

  • I axed the entire section listing the abortion laws state by state, because it's not quite on topic for this article, which is specifically about the abortion rights movement. Wikipedia has other articles on the general topic of Abortion in the US, and even one specifically listing the abortion laws state by state; the existence of those lets us focus this article on the movement.
  • The section on the religious pro-choice groups seems to be largely a guide to their websites. We don't have a third-party source indicating that these websites are of particular importance. If we're going to include these groups (and that seems not unreasonable on the face of it), we probably should be covering their history, how they've been involved, and what impact they've had, and sourcing that to third-party references. And we shouldn't go too in depth here, because both Catholics for Choice and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice already have full articles about them (and I haven't taken a close look at those; perhaps they could use a bit more info on what those groups' websites provide.) Also, I removed the links to the websites, because we discourage external links in the body copy of articles (there is a section at the bottom of most articles for external links, and you can see what links to avoid at WP:ELNO.

I hope that's all clear. Let me know if you have any questions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that we already have an article: List of abortion-rights organizations in the United States, so what should be in THIS article is things like what NatGertler stated above: ...their history, how they've been involved, and what impact they've had, and sourcing that to third-party references. Thanks for your additions! It does take some time to learn all of Wikipedia's policies.---Avatar317(talk) 01:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
And to be fair, the prior listed organizations (also added today) also have a problem with the lack of third-party sourcing. (The Planned Parenthood part does rely on one external source, but the link to it is not functioning properly, so I cannot judge.) I did just scrape a layer of WP:POV out of some of it. I appreciate the enthusiasm of our student editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC) And I now see that their assignment was due today, so we may not see much more out of them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 September 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sinno024, Hugue008, GVR117. Peer reviewers: Piepe074, Debat012, GraceMcL, Tyler Borschnack, Will5590.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 23 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rj-2198, Haydenh22. Peer reviewers: Meganchong, Sreddyuab.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_abortion-rights_movement/Archive_5&oldid=1240271398"