Talk:Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;

Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives
Archive 1 (April 2006 - June 2006)

Contents 1 Factually Incorrect 2 Errors Regarding Contraceptives 3 Very Nice Work 4 Two proposals

[edit] Factually Incorrect

This sentence:

The act explicitly defines pregnancy as beginning at the point of conception rather than at implantation into the uterine wall (see fertilisation), which could mean that H.B. 1215 applies to the abortifacient drug RU486.

is completely off-base, as RU468 is administered between 6 and 9 weeks. Doctors on the whole do not perform abortions between 6 weeks because is is far more difficult to tell if the abortion was successful. Could they be referring to emergency contraception or hormonal birth control instead, both of which are theorized to have inhibitory effects on implantation? Noabsolutes 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors Regarding Contraceptives

Actually, section 3 of the H.B. 121

"Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions."[1]

seems to explicitly exempt contraceptives from the law. The article, however, states: "The act explicitly defines pregnancy as beginning at the point of conception rather than at implantation into the uterine wall (see beginning of pregnancy controversy), which could mean that H.B. 1215 applies to emergency contraception and possibly all forms of hormonal contraception." which seems to be inaccurate.

Additionally, a later sentence says that "If Roe is overturned, there are "trigger" provisions in H.B. 1215 which would instantly criminalize obtaining or providing abortions." However, there are actually no provisions that do that in H.B. 1215. Those provisions are actually in 2005 H.B. 1249, and they only prohibit providing abortions, *not* obtaining them. [2] Josh 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the point above is moot, though, since H.B. 1215 prohibits providing abortions now and does not have a delayed effective date. In fact, the entire sentence in the article seems unnecessary as a result. Josh 06:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very Nice Work

I am very, very impressed at how well this article has turned out. I'm the creator/original editor of this article, but I bailed on it early last year out of frustration with what I perceived as bias and intractability inherent with the Wikipedian process. Revisiting the final result months later, I see now that I gave up far too soon. My deep thanks to all contributors. Now, shall we bring this puppy on home?
Struct 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two proposals

I'd like to take everyone's pulse on the following:

1) I propose that the current talk page be archived.
2) Given that this article seems to have been polished into a final draft, I propose some form of edit protection.
Struct 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have archived the Talk page as requested. Regarding page protection, pages generally aren't protected against editing unless they are heavily vandalised, undergoing a major editorial dispute, or featured on the main page, although you may request page protection here. -Severa (!!!) 03:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see this article as being anywhere near a final draft. It's very good, but it's a long way from Featured Article class, which is probably the closest thing to a "finished draft" on Wikipedia. -Severa (!!!) 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)