Talk:Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Proposals 1.1 Title Change 2 To-Do List 3 POV problem in paragraph 2? 4 Discussion 5 POV Title 6 Reproductive Rights Controversy (from South Dakota page) 7 Proposed page move 7.1 Comments 8 Updates 9 Re-Propose Title Change 10 Requested move: South Dakota H.B. 1215 controversy 10.1 Survey 10.2 Discussion 11 Requested Move: South Dakota abortion law (controversy) 11.1 Support 11.2 Oppose 11.3 Discussion 12 Yet Another Retitle Proposal

Proposals

Title Change

An attempt has been made to change the title of this article to "South Dakota abortion law controversy" on grounds of NPOV. Please vote on whether this should happen. I have added the NPOV-check tag which should stay until a consensus is reached.

I strongly disagree with this proposal. Reproductive rights is a mainstream umbrella term, commonly used in the media, under which matters such as abortion and contraception fall. Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut protected legal rights pertaining to matters of reproduction, ergo their existence is not subject to dispute until such time as those cases are overturned.Struct 04:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this proposal. Rarely ever is the term "reproductive rights" used by anybody else than those who (usually strongly) favor legal abortion. In addition, one could argue that abortion logically does not fall under the banner of such a term, since the process takes place after reproduction has occurred. There is a reason that it is mentioned as "framing" on the Reproductive rights page. In addition, may I mention that the law solely pertains to abortion, rather than to the other issues mentioned on the "reproductive rights" page. --Jakes18 05:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A truly neutral page title would be "South Dakota H.R. 1215 controversy". CovenantD 05:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Not nearly as informative, but it might be the only fair way to go. Struct 05:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough, although "Abortion law" is less mystifying to those not acquainted with the bill / law. --Jakes18 19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Abortion law" is much clearer English and in no way POV. The controversy is about a law. The law in question (a stupid one in my view, for whatever that's worth) is one that imposes prohibitions on abortion. Some people, including me, invoke concepts of "reproductive freedom", "reproductive rights" etc., to oppose the enactment of such laws, but what such laws actually do is prohibit abortions. End of story. Except to say that a title like "South Dakota pro-life controversy" would be just as wrong as the current one. Metamagician3000 08:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly hold a nuanced view as to this proposal. I am open to a name change, and I agree that "reproductive rights" is a term used almost exclusively by pro-choice advocates. However, "abortion law" seems clumsy. Perhaps the best solution is as Jakes18 suggested - name the article "South Dakota H.R. 1215 controversy" or something to that effect, them redirect other articles like "abortion law" and "reproductive rights" to that page. I created the "Reproductive Rights" article as a separate article, but I just went with the name that had been used as the heading in the "South Dakota" article - I didn't give it alot of thought.--Tonywiki 21:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I suggested H.R. 1215 :) I really like your additions, though - it gives both sides what they want yet defaults to a truly neutral (if non-clarifying) title. CovenantD 21:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's less informative, but I can get behind changing the article's title to "South Dakota H.B. 1215 Controversy" (and it is H.B. and not H.R., right?) If Jakes18 is amenable, I will request unprotection and make the change myself, and I'll change the "see also" links on other pages as well. HOWEVER, I'll only do this if there's two understandings:

1) "South Dakota reproductive rights controversy" and "South Dakota abortion law controversy" will remain as redirects to "South Dakota H.B. 1215 Controversy"; all other junk pages like "South Dakota abortion law controversy(2)" or "South Dakota reproductive rights controversy(temp)" will be speedy deleted.

2) Title changes should be discussed on the talk page first. I will commit to making sure that those with pro-choice leanings adhere to this if Jakes18 will do the same with the pro-lifers. Struct 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed move. "Reproductive rights" is somewhat opinionated. The phrase is exclusively used by those who believe abortion should be legal. Rhobite 00:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that that phrase is exclusively used by the pro-choice crowd. It's a legitimate legal term as well, and like I said before, it's an umbrella term that applies to contraceptive issues as well as pregnancy termination, and might even apply to reproductive cloning as well.

Regardless of who does or does not use the term, however, it's an accurate and factual term. Like I also said before, the Roe and Griswold cases guaranteed certain rights pertaining to reproduction -- ergo, reproductive rights. Even though I don't think the original title is biased, I'm getting behind CovenantD's proposal for the sake of removing even the sense of a POV. However, I will fight any effort to totally eradicate that phrase.

Meanwhile, Jakes18 hasn't chimed in on this. Let's give it until 23:30 UTC today, and then barring any objection, I'll make the agreed-upon move. Struct 05:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, let's just make the move already and be done with it. Struct 09:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I think "abortion law" is a more direct and descriptive title, if it is necessary, I do not have a problem with the other suggested title ("South Dakota H.B. 1215 Controversy"). For your own good, please note that "abortion" occurs during pregnancy, after the actual reproductive processes have occurred. --Jakes18 19:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if you limit the notion of "reproductive processes" to sexual intercourse, and that's a semantics debate for another time. In the meantime, please spare me patronizing comments like "for your own good", I really don't like that. I'm trying to assume good faith here, and I'd appreicate it if you'd do the same. Struct 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Being pro legalized abortion and anti-euphemism, I agree with the proposed move to South Dakota abortion law controversy. David Sneek 19:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, David, that's nice but that's not the proposal on the table. CovenantD 15:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No. The proposal at the top of this section is: "An attempt has been made to change the title of this article to "South Dakota abortion law controversy" on grounds of NPOV. Please vote on whether this should happen" [1]. The move template, with the suggested move to "HB 1215 controversy", was added two days later [2], after several people had already voted. David Sneek 19:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As a South Dakotan and from personal experience, I have seen that Abortion Law is used more by the people of South Dakota where this issue is taking place. Not only would it make it easier to find, you wouldn't have to memorize as many politically correct terms. Respectivley ch 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Stongly Agree. "Abortion law" is neutral. Saying "reproductive rights" is just as slanted as saying "not-getting-dismembered-rights" in reference to the baby in question. Polyhymnia

• Abortion law is NPOV because the issue is . . . well, abortion. "Reproductive rights" is so inherently POV it is astonishing that it ever was allowed to be used to start off with. It contains a blatently and inherently POV word, "rights". One side of the argument uses rights. One side doesn't. The article's title explicitly presumes there are rights. I'm not supporting either side. Frankly to use language used by either side to push their agenda is blatently POV. It is as abhorrent to NPOV to use " reproductive rights" as it would be to use "rights of unborn children" in the title. All sides are agreed on one term, abortion, so it is the obvious NPOV word to use. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the move. Švitrigaila 08:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To-Do List

• Media Coverage section needs expansion. I'm sure there's no shortage of available sites and cites. Struct 22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Supporting citations needed:

• Section 1, paragraph 4, sentence 1
• Section 3, bullet item 2

Struct 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

POV problem in paragraph 2?

I can't help but wonder if there's a leading-the-reader problem with paragraph 2. I'd hate to see that paragraph go however; I'd prefer to have it counter-balanced instead. Thoughts? Struct 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Change "omitted" to "did not include" and state where those experts spoke - I'm guessing it was at hearings before the task force, a committee, or maybe even the full legislature, but I don't personally know. That would show why their "omission" is relevant to the criticism. CovenantD 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought "omitted" was synonymous with "did not include"? ;) At any rate, I think a better citation is needed. The citation as given backs up the criticism statement, but only indirectly supports the omission assertion. I don't think there's any reason to doubt Karen Miller at her word, but a cite from a neutral source is still called for.

I also wonder if paragraph 2 should be moved to "Reaction to H.B. 1215". In fact, I dare say that it should. Any objections? Struct 07:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Omitted," to me at least, implies intention to withhold. "Did not include" seems far more neutral. The best things to cite would be the reports themselves rather than reports about the reports. Those, and the legislation authorizing the task force, place it firmly in the Legislative History arena IMHO. CovenantD 07:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about this: Move paragraph two, sentence two to paragraph one, sentence four. Move paragraph two, sentence one to the "reaction" section, change "omitted" to "did not include", and add a "citation needed" tag after the word "option". That sounds right, so I'm going to go ahead and do it. If anyone's opposed, I won't fight a revert. Struct 22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I created this page to allow for a more full discussion of the 2006 South Dakota abortion ban. The discussion in the main South Dakota article, though informative, was rather too in-depth for the general state page, which generally deals with broad information as to demographics, geography, history, and politics - not specific issues. If the article were to include specific issues, it would be considerably longer. I think included a brief paragraph and a link to this page is a good way to balance the need for a comprehensive article with appropriateness for the South Dakota page.

---

This one's a political landmine. I'd like to urge fair play. Stick to the facts, don't play semantic games, and don't edit out or disclaim factual material just because you find the reality disagreeable.

I think we're going to have a POV problem regardless though, so I'd like to also urge inclusion rather than exclusion. For instance, Webbrg, I take grave exception to your descriptive approach to Roe. So what if "historic" might have a positive connotation? So does that mean that the Bataan Death March or the Trail of Tears can't be described as "historic" either?

Here's a better idea: be inclusive rather than exclusive (e.g., "historic AND controversial"). Yes, people should make up their own minds about issues, but they should be exposed to both points of view, not neither.

So my challenge to Webbrg and all you other anti-choice advocates out there is to add your material WITHOUT altering or expurgating that which you find offensive but is nonetheless factual. The fact of the matter is, HB 1215 is patently unconstitutional, and I defy you to find a court in the land that would uphold it under current standards. If you want to note that the "pro-life" community argues that is shouldn't be unconstitutional, then fine, but quit truthifying reality.

Now having said that, in the interest of civility, I've thrown the right wing a number of bones in my latest edit, but if y'all persist with your truthification, then I predict a mod is going to need to step in.

Before or after paragraph two, a paragraph on how the anti-choice/pro-life movement hailed South Dakota's actions would fit very nicely. I invite an anti-choice/pro-life advocate to write such a paragraph. If it's factually accurate, I will not only leave it untouched, but I will endavor to make sure it stays in future edits as written. I've added the globalize tag to urge the creation of such a paragraph.

Struct 18:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Struct - I agree with your comments. I am glad you agree with the separate article - it just seems like a separate page is warranted. --Tonywiki 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Just did some cleanup work. Removed some redundant material and replaced the globalize tag with the neutrality tag since it's more accurate. After double-checking the citations, I think we can safely conclude that a Roe challenge was an overt goal of H.B. 1215; Governor Rounds said as much.

Struct 19:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I realize that original research is not allowed, but I live in SD, watch the news, and know personally many of the key "characters" in this whole debate. there is no question that the overt goal is to challenge Roe. I would point out that, although Rounds signed the bill, it was not his proposal and he did not push it through the legislature; I think it is more accurate to say that it is the sponsor's goal, not Rounds'.--Tonywiki 20:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

It looks like Webbrg is not going to take up my challenge to add a paragraph with the anti-choice perspective, so I'm going to do his job for him. I want that neutrality tag removed.

Struct 04:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

---

"Anti-choice" is as much a pejorative as "pro-life" is, if not less so: if I'm in favor of choice, I'm anti-life?!? I don't think so.

My hope was to utilize both terms, but I guess that ain't gonna happen. I refuse to let "pro-life" stand alone however. If we can't have both, then we'll have neither. Struct 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia it is preferable to use the term by which someone self-identifies. I hope you will replace "pro-life". Rhobite 04:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but IMHO, the self-identification defense is trumped by the need for neutrality. "Pro-life" is not innocuous nomenclature: it's loaded, offensive (like I said, pro-choice does not equal anti-life), and most importantly, highly disputable (see my "is a fetus 'alive'" comments at the end of section 12 of Talk:Abortion).

In the context of the sentence from which I removed the term, "pro-life" did not add that much to the material since it was already strongly implied. Notice, however, I did leave "pro-life" in the name of that Wisconsin organization in Sec. 3 Par. 1 -- as odious as I find the term, your self-identification argument holds water in that case. Struct 05:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-choice" is equally offensive to people who oppose legal abortion, but I don't see you scrambling to remove that one or pair it with "anti-life", "pro-death", etc. Self-identification is the only way to resolve this ancient dispute. Removing the mention of Napoli's pro-life position is basically withholding information from encyclopedia readers. Rhobite 05:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

While "pro-choice" may be equally offensive to the anti-choice crowd, it is not equally inaccurate. Look at the antonym as an illustration: "anti-choice" works as a description of the anti-abortion crowd. The so-called "pro-life" argument is that an "unborn child" is alive, therefore there's a moral/ethical/legal obligation to fight against the choice to "kill" that "child". Do you have a suggestion for an alternate term for "pro-choice" that's accurate and NPOV? Come up with one and I'll make that change.

With all due respect Rhobite, I hardly think that omitting "pro-life" in that sentence is "withholding information". Again, the context is more than sufficient, plus detail on Napoli's views are easily obtainable via the four, count them, four Napoli-related links in that paragraph.

Self-identification is neither a panacea nor a universal justification. If David Duke went around identifying himself as "pro-racial purification", would you argue that that term should always be used when describing him?

I'll issue you the same challenge that I gave to Webbrg: don't distort and don't prevaricate... ADD, and be fair. Struct 05:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

More on point, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is what these movements call themselves. These are the terms used by the media. This is because they both put their respective movements in the best light - one would rather be "for life" than "against choice" and one would rather be "for choice" that "for death" or "against life". "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the commonly used terms and should be used. --Tonywiki 05:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, for the reasons given above. However, I'm not going to go about hunting down and pruning every use of the term "pro-life". Notice that I left the term intact in Sec. 3 and in the "see also" links section. Struct 05:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and while I'm at it, let me reiterate that yours truly was the one to put in Sec. 3 Par. 1 because he was bothered by the lack of a "pro-life" perspective and did not feel comfortable removing the neutrality tag until that paragraph was added. Struct 05:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Title

I think we can agree that the very title of this page goes against the NPOV policy. "Reproductive terms" is a buzzword used almost exclusively by those who favor legal abortion. Therefore, I have changed this page into a redirect to a far less POV title, "South Dakota abortion law controversy".

That's aboslute anti-choice nonsense, and I thoroughly resent your not signing that comment and arbitrarily making that change. Make a proposal on the talk page next time. Struct 04:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reproductive Rights Controversy (from South Dakota page)

My comments moved to South Dakota reproductive rights controversy.

Struct 18:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I have created a new page, South Dakota reproductive rights controversy, to allow for a more full discussion of the 2006 South Dakota abortion ban. The discussion in the main South Dakota article, though informative, was rather too in-depth for the general state page, which generally deals with broad information as to demographics, geography, history, and politics - not specific issues. If the article were to include specific issues, it would be considerably longer. I think included a brief paragraph and a link to this page is a good way to balance the need for a comprehensive article with appropriateness for the South Dakota page.

---

I regretfully concur.

Struct 18:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I think the evidence at hand supports the conclusion that a Roe challenge was a prime underlying goal of H.B. 1215. Without a citation, however, I don't think it's safe to use either of the adjectives "ulterior" or "stated". Once a good cite is in place, one adjective or the other should be restored -- or we could leave it as is.

Struct 03:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed page move

Please note - the discussion at the top of this page, occurring over the last two days, will also be considered in determining if the page move has consensus.

South Dakota reproductive rights controversy → South Dakota H.B. 1215 controversy … Please vote and discuss here.

• Oppose move as proposed target is not the most common name. Might support some other proposal. Jonathunder 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but I don't think we even need the word "controversy" in the title. I think we should be renaming the page South Dakota H.B. 1215. This is a factual, NPOV name. Johntex\^talk
• Oppose Article titles should give some indication of why the subject is notable. I agree that the present name is flawed. Septentrionalis 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Um, take a look at the discussion already happening closer to the top of this page. You'll find the compromise solution that everybody else has agreed to already. CovenantD 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply disagree this is a good name for the article, as it is one that is far from commonly used. Jonathunder 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you READ the proposed compromise? It incorporates the "commonly used" phrases in redirect pages. That way the pro-lifers and and the pro-choice people get to use the wording they prefer. I doubt that the two side will agree to anything even remotely seen as biased, which is the claim with the current title. CovenantD 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read this entire page, yes, and I disagree that the proposed title comports with Wikipedia naming guidelines and policies. Please do not attack the intellegence or good faith of other editors--it's hardly a way to win them to your point of view. Do not move this page until the requested moves voting process concludes. Jonathunder 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Why bother with the "controversy" modifier? Why not just call it H.B. 1215 (which, as of 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC) doesn't exist) or something to that effect, thus making no POV descision on the title? While that sounds a lot less alive than South Dakota reproductive rights controversy or whatever else you all were thinking, it would be technically correct. The article could more present the bill and discuss the effects than the other way around (and be treated as a typical law article). What does anyone else think? -21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think this article name has POV issues. "Reproductive rights" is a term used almost exclusively by one faction of the debate over this issue. I propose renaming the page South Dakota H.B. 1215. This is a factual, NPOV name. Johntex\^talk 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

However, no one other than South Dakota policy wonks is going to refer to this debate by a bill number. Wikipedia policy is to name articles under the most common names actually used in English. Jonathunder 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to WP:NAME, that policy gives several things we should strive for. The "most common name" is not the only consideration. We also have other official policies, which are even more important than WP:NAME. In the case of a POV title, WP:NPOV is more important. Johntex\^talk 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the present name is far from optimal. I'm sure we can find one which is both NPOV and non-obscure. This present proposal isn't it. Jonathunder 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonothunder seems to have a problem that the discussion started before he arrived and there were already votes cast at the top of this page. He created this heading and has refused any attempt to bring the two sections together. I've tried to integrate them into this section but they have been reverted. He also removed content that had I added, including a timeline and comments. I urge everybody to scroll up to the top of this and read the section - Proposals - Title change - to get the full course of discussion. In summary, we had agreed the best course would be to rename the page to the less-than-spectacular SD H.B. 1215 controversy with redirects from both SD abortion law controversy and SD reproductive rights controversy, thus hopefully satisfying every viewpoint on the spectrum. CovenantD 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It does seem as though consensus was reached above, though it was a smallish number of editors and discussion "ended" so recently that the move has not even taken place yet. I'm OK with the consensus reached above. If there is only the one new objection here in this section, then Jonathunder is not enough to undoe the consensus. We don't need to consolidate the two sections, the consensus remains the same. Johntex\^talk 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It was only today listed on WP:RM, which is what brought me here. Please let that run its course. We have several people saying such an obscure name is not optimal, and I think the eyes of editors the requested move listing will bring in will help improve the suggestion. Jonathunder 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh by all means, we have to go through the 5 day process. I did not mean otherwise - sorry if my post was unclear. What I meant was, if we get no other objections. We may well gets lots of other objections, lots of other supports, lots of new ideas, etc. Johntex\^talk 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The article already had been moved, but Jonothunder moved it back. That was in one of the talk page comments that he reverted. I wasn't aware of the five day process until after an admin had already approved the move, it happened, and then it was moved back. I, wrongly it appears, assumed that when the admin had declared consensus reached that we had ended the process and that the move could happen. Now I know better. By all means, continue the vote, and I'm very please to see that ALL votes will be counted. CovenantD 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Covenent. What you (and the admin) did was not really wrong. Policy does say that unopposed moves can be made without posting for 5 days. However, it is clear that this move has generated some opposition, even if it ends up being just 1 or 2 people. The safest thing is to let the discussion play out for the 5 days and see what other opinions surface, if anyone changes their opinion. Johntex\^talk 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the five days are over -- at least based on the listing at WP:RM -- but if you want to continue the discussion, feel free to do so. As it stands now, I'd close as a no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Updates

I updated the refferendum bit on the page. It has now been passed and is going on the ballot. For better or for worse. ch 18:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-Propose Title Change

I think most of the readers here, whether supportive of abortion rights or not, can agree that the title of this page uses a blatantly POV term ("reproductive rights"). This is an embarrasment to this site, even if only a small one, and should be changed. Yet while most of the above thought we should change the title, nobody could agree on what the final title should be.

I'm thinking "South Dakota abortion law controversy". I do not see anybody's point of view represented in that title, and it is about as succinct and direct as one can be. I don't understand how it is any less NPOV than "HB 1215 Controversy" or whatsuch, and it is more descriptive. Anybody agree on a move? --Jakes18 05:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose There was a perfectly good suggestion early on to rename it H.B. 1215 Controversy with redirects from both abortion law controversy and reproductive rights controversy. You can't get more neutral than that. CovenantD 14:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, why not just name the article after the bill? There isn't an article about the bill, so why add "controversy" to the title? (if I were searching for this topic, though, I'd probably type in South Dakota abortion ban). --Andrew c 15:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If all we can agree on is H.B. 1215 Controversy, than let's do that. I will be satisfied. --Jakes18 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"H.B. 1215" is an obscure term which suggests nothing to most readers, and I would strongly oppose titling this article with it, but "South Dakota abortion law" is descriptive, accurate, broadly recognizable, commonly used, and I see no NPOV issue in using it. Jonathunder 03:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Retitle Proposal

I propose that, to maintain consistency with the titling conventions employed throughtout Category:Abortion law, and to avoid confusion with S.D. abortion laws other than HB 1215, the article be moved to "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act." This is the official name of this legislation according to the text of the Act. -Severa (!!!) 11:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would Support, but I think even better would be South Dakota Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act. Johntex\^talk 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)