Talk:Roe v. Wade/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Opinion of the Court?

This article features very little on the actual majority opinion of the court. Whats the deal? Someone should update it to include that. If no one else would like to, I can. However, section V of the opinion summarizes it up nicely if someone else would like to. It's a little bit disappointing that this article doesn't have it, considering this is one of the most important recent cases in American law.

Jcp20 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This page is vandalised so often no one seemed to notice the actual substance of the decision was deleted. I've replaced it, but don't blink or it'll be gone! Caveat lector 00:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Content Box

Just something I noticed - I was comparing the 'Roe v. Wade' page with that 'Miranda v. Arizona' to see if the formatting was the same for both supreme court cases, when I noticed that on Miranda v. Arizona the content box showed as follows:

Contents [hide] 1 Background of the case 1.1 The Legal Aid Movement 1.2 Arrest and conviction 2 The Supreme Court's decision 2.1 Harlan's dissent 3 Effects of the decision 4 Subsequent history 5 Sources and further reading 6 External links

In Roe v. Wade, the first section is called 'History of the Case'. Is there any reason these are different? A minor matter, but I just thought I'd point it out. 67.162.149.163 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Plaintiff's name

The correct name of the main plantiff is "Jane Roe," not "Jane Doe" as mentioned in "Background of the case." --Nick 17:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


Comparisons with Canada

''I've looked at the Abortion the US page and i'm really not sure what is better here and there...i'm going to copy the commment there too"--Marcie 23:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hello. I'm a Cannuck that has done some changes on the page. Hope you don't mind...a course i took compared the Roe vs. Wade decision to the Canadian case, and i wanted to try and add in some of what we learned which was basically that your decision came a hell of a lot earlier than ours (in terms of decriminalizing...abortions were available in Canada somewhat earlier but only under an except under the criminal code that required a lot of things...see the abortion in Canada page for info (i'm still learning to link...not quite sure how to do that one). Since the most important part of the US ruling was regarding privacy, AND since the decision regarding trimesters was based on viability there are different results. Not that it would not be impossible to write an abortion law in Canada, it just impossible politically since the last one went down on a tie in the Senate and any party that passes such a law knows they aren't going to last long (POV but on a talk page ok i think?). Probably the fact that we have a multiparty system (4 parties at the moment) AND a minority governement at the moment(2004 June) , although its the first in 25 years. While only two parties have ever been the federal government, there has been difference on which party is the opposition and the dynamics are quite different.

Also, again from a Canadian standpoint, i don't understand why the different rules from state to state regarding abortion, medicade coverage for abortion and even using city or state water is not discussed. I've read of many strange ways that the rights have been restricted in the US including clinics being denied access to the water of an area thus having to dig a well...but then they aren't allowed to use the general sewage if they get the water. I would think the fact that medicade often doesn't cover abortion would be an issue of class access, something that we are trying to address on the Canadian abortion page.

I guess these are ramifications of the law? Would there be a more appropriate spot to discuss this (and leave you alone if its the wrong spot). I did add in the effect of the trimester part of the ruling but left the rest out so i could ask, and start a discussion before just posting it up---if i've got the right spot even. Looks good though...i'm sure it was contentious to write!--Marcie 23:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV??

I've read over this page, and I'm not exactly sure that it could qualify as NPOV. Consider this one sentence in particular:

"Abortion doctors have been the targets of harrassment and even murder by pro-life zealots who claim that by taking the life of an abortion doctor they are actually saving many fetus' lifes."

Whether or not I agree with those sentiments is irrelevant; it's not NPOV, and I suspect a lot of the rest of the article isn't, either. I'm also not sure that I could rewrite this article to BE NPOV. Thanks. --Fermatprime 12:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A lot of this page is in need of re-writing for bad grammar, inaccuracy, lack of information and NPOV correction. I have hesitated to put it on my To-Do list for the Supreme Court case WikiProject because it is a very controversial decision, but it has gotten too far out of hand now. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Skyler1534 13:52, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Intersting. I wrote the article (well the original) on doctors being shot for the Canadian page and the Roe. page. I deliberately put it under other saying it could not be the general position of the pro life movement to kill. Its stayed all right on the Canadian page...maybe people just change stuff less there. There was no mention of "zealots"...guess its a wiki thing eh?--Marcie 22:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bias

This page is really rather biased. It would be improved if the many x say this and many Y say that could be removed. But the main problem is structure. The focus on the 'aftermath' is on attempts to overturn the legislation. Should attempts to maintain the legislation and the various movements for this also be included.

I have tried to remove some of the overt evaluative claims such as legislation to overturn X is "being tied up" in court. Perhaps specific arguments should be removed: E.g., ending the first section with a large quote from Renquist is just overt (I have removed this).

I get the feeling that this is a page that is going to flip-flop a lot between fair an balanced to balanced one way or the other, but perhaps a good faith effort could be made to keep it neutral. [From IP address 151.141.67.24 on 14:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)]

The fact is that there were not many attempts made in the wake of Roe to pass pro-choice legislation. It is also a fact that Roe v. Wade sparked a huge backlash across the country. Whether or not you agree with that backlash is irrelevent to its POV. The focus on the subsequent history is appropriate because when people speak of "Roe v. Wade" they are often referring to the subsequent controversy and not the original decision.
However, I admit the article could previously be read as biased. I have done my best to be NPOV while making the article interesting. Therefore, I have changed the name of the section to "Controversy over Roe" and included mention of Roe supporters. I think the article is quite comprehensive and well-written at this point and would like to nominate it for featured article status. NP 05:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV link removed

"RoevWade.org" is an anti-abortion advocacy site that makes numerous substantive claims that are either plainly political POV or else hotly contested. To link to it as a resource on Roe v. Wade while not providing balancing links to pro-choice resources on Roe v. Wade is manifestly a violation of NPOV. If others feel that discussions by advocates are a good resource to link, then let them add it along with pro-choice advocacy sites that discuss Roe v. Wade and the surrounding legal framework; if not, then let both be removed in favor of NPOV legal information on the decision. Radgeek 03:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article should stand by itself and neither pro nor anti links to outside fundraising/political organizations (overt or not which is why I have deleted a picture that shows a web address from the page since it was less information than subtle if unintended advocacy of one pov over another)Awotter

I think a better solution than removing the pro-Roe photo would be to balance it with a photo of protesters opposing Roe, or better yet, find a single picture that shows both sides counter-demonstrating. That would highlight the strength of the controversy, and make the article pop out more as well. Just my opinion. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Major edits to "Abortion" section

I eliminated the title of "Abortion" since it really didn't make sense. The section is about a Supreme Court decision, not abortion itself.--Elizabeth 16:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The "Abortion" section under "The Supreme Court's decision" heading was overly brief and not quite correct. The decision itself was fairly lengthy and deserved more than a paragraph. I suspect the author of that section had a political bias since the dissent was also given an entire paragraph, even though it was about a tenth the size. I edited this page to put the Nov. 23 and Jan 9 discussions in chronological order. Pencil Pusher 06:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Historical revisionism

  • It should be noted that the above comment was by a know sockpuppet of a baned vandal, the vandal was baed from making extreme POV edits, see Captain Liberty (talk · contribs) and Cap. Freedom (talk · contribs) for refrence of some this users previous activity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moral Clarity (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned JoeM (talk · contribs), and therefore the comments have been removed, --SqueakBox 17:08, May 2, 2005

•°•§°•°

Catholicism and Roe v. Wade

It should be noted that all, not many, Catholics are opposed to abortion. According to the teachings of the Church, it is the killing of a human being, and if one were to deny that, one would excommunicate himself and thereby no longer be a Catholic. Harboring thoughts of infanticide is a mortal sin.

  • It's pretty obvious that not all self-identifying Catholics believe abortion is wrong, notwithstanding the official Vatican position, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the moment one deviates from official Church doctrine, one automatically ceases to be a Catholic, particularly considering how the Church hasn't itself actively excommunicated every Catholic who have supported abortion rights (including certain priests). See no true Scotsman. Postdlf 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I am a Catholic Son of an Irish ex nun, and I see abortion as being a bad thing, but necessary. Such swooping gereralism's are totally POV, and have no grounding. You may possibly say that "most" Catholics are opposed to abortion, though then I would like to see exact polls. I am here, however, to state that you are definitely wrong in stating "all, not many, Catholics are opposed to abortion", since I am Catholic, and I most definitely agree with Roe Vs Wade.

No offence intended, but what you mean is that you consider yourself Catholic. The Pope would disagree because of your views in this matter. Toby Douglass 10:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As for excomunication, if you were to research the subject, (as I have), you would realise that excomunication only comes under a certain number of prerequisites. None of the prerequisites include supporting abortion. The latest addition to the list does include "physically assaulting the pope", but there is nothing about abortion. I personally, would love to be excommunicated, but have been informed by my Priest, that my views alone are not enough to warrant excommunication. If I were to attack the Pope for example, I could be, but my views alone are not enough. Indeed, if abortion were enough to warrant excommunication, then merely wearing a condom would be enough, which would automatically excommunicate 99% of the worlds Catholics.

Why would abortion ever be necessary? And why would anyone want to be excommunicated (sheesh)? Doesn't excommunication mean you can't receive the sacraments? Hence wearing a condom (a sin since sex can't be separated from its reproductive, marriage-related purpose, and people shouldn't be treated as objects) does not mean you can't go to confession since the Church doesn't hold anything to be unforgiveable. Even formal excommunication (which is extremely rare, BTW) can be undone.

P.S. Supposedly, you used to have to get the Bishop to pardon an abortion, but that requirement has been lifted and passed to the general priests because of the exponential growth of its use (yuk).
Armslurp 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I think that it is worth noting that there is a difference between believing something is morally wrong and wanting it to be outlawed. For instance, the catholic church believes that masturbation is a sin worthy of eternal damnation. Even if you were the prudest of catholics I doubt you would want this outlawed because every 13 year old boy in the country would be locked up. Thus many catholic that do not believe abortion just be made illegal justify their stances on abortion by saying that they believe that it is wrong, but it is not something that should be illegal.
There's a difference in performing an action with full knowledge that it is wrong, and doing something out of immaturity and ignorance. Therefore, the guilt could be less if the person is too young to behave (see the Catechism, 2352). However, if you know sex is for making babies, and babies are better off with a mother and father (freely bound together by law to be monogamous), then why would you let it be legal to abort? It's taken as tacit approval of the action, sin of omission (although fear and such can decrease it). It's not normally considered wise to allow/approve such bad decisions, even if the goal is to keep the government out of your personal life. Abortion is never needed, and there's always a better alternative. God IS real (and loving, nice, perfect, kind, all-knowing, merciful), and without Him you can do nothing. If someone searches for and finds Him (or He finds you, like He did with St. Paul), they'll truly live a happier life. (BTW, been around any babies lately? They're hilarious!) Armslurp 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take this moment to remind folks that Wiki talk pages are for talking about the article, not talking about the subject of the article. This particular conversation has gone pretty far afield from the Wiki article.
Atlant 19:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, I see your point (ugh, that's annoying but easier to read, at least). However, how can we add more important information to the article without discussing it? Maybe there should be a wholly separate article about this. Anyways, if you don't like it, delete it. I won't revert it (but someone else might).
Armslurp 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Inviolability" or "personhood" of the fetus

I changed the phrase "religious groups who believed very strongly in the inviolability of the fetus" to "religious groups who believed very strongly in the personhood of the fetus." Elizabeyth changed it back: [1], citing NPOV.

Why is this a NPOV problem? I'm not asserting anything about the personhood of the fetus. I'm simply trying to clarify what those religious groups actually believe. They believe that a fetus is a human being and should be entitled to the same rights and protections as any other human being. I believe using the word "inviolability" obfuscates what these groups believe.

Since my edit was not actually a POV problem, being properly contextualized and also being a true and accurate representation of what those religious groups believe, I am going to make the change again. I'll watch here on the talk page to see if anyone wants to point out an actual POV problem with the wording. Jdavidb 14:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV (or, as I typed it, "NVOP") summary was an error. I was going to rework something else, then decided to take this change first.
First of all, in all honesty, I just don't like the word "personhood". It's one of those forced words created to satisfy political correctness, and it just jumps out at you when you read it.

According to Wikipedia, "In philosophy, there have been debates over the precise meaning and correct usage of the word, and what the criteria for personhood are." That's in the article I linked to from the word personhood. Maybe you feel that the word has been crafted, but it's the word commonly in use. Wikipedia even has an article on Great ape personhood. This is in no way a word made up solely for the abortion debate. Jdavidb 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, I disagree that your characterization is a true and accurate representation of the beliefs of every religious group that opposes abortion. I find it hard to believe that they all think it's a "person"; it's a potential human life, but I can't imagine anyone successfully arguing that anything the size of a lentil is a person.
Please note Elizabeyth's argument; she "can't imagine" something, so therefore it must be false. If she is truly so incapable of dispassionate thought, she ought not to contribute to this article.
I think it's fairer to say that they all would agree it is inviolable; that is, it just shouldn't be messed with. "Inviolability" is a broader term and hence more accurate. Plus, the definition of "person" is a major point in the decision and its use here is confusing.
Note Elizabeyth's failure to understand that this is not an argument about legalistic word choice; it is a discussion about whether a group's views are represented correctly. I don't believe there is any significant element of "choice" involved in elective abortion; does this therefore mean that, like Elizabeyth, I can expunge the use of that word with respect to the so-called "pro-choice" groups? The hypocritical double-standard is breathtaking.
Would you consider "humanity" of the fetus? Elizabeyth 00:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why does your ability to imagine anyone successfully using the argument interfere with Wikipedia's need to report that people do use that argument? If you'll survey the pro-life literature, pretty much everyone is arguing for the personhood of the fetus, either from religious or scientific evidence. I'd say the burden is on you to find any evidence of a pro-lifer who argues in any other way. Personhood is the word nearly always used.

I don't think the word "inviolability" works as well in that sentence. Just saying they believe the fetus to be inviolable doesn't say why they believe that. Explaining they believe the fetus to be a person explains why.

I don't think it's confusing at all to use the term personhood there explaining in context that that's what many religious people say.

The word "humanity" would work, but the most commonly used word is "personhood." Why not report the arguments that people actually use? Jdavidb 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Inviolable doesn't mean shouldn't be messed with, it means can't be messed with. Clearly, that is not the case. The word you are looking for is sanctity.
Pencil Pusher 17:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so defensive of a single word. I have no counterargument. I just personally think it's not great writing. But hey, if it's what the religious groups use, then more power to them. Elizabeyth 21:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That must be it, Elizabeyth. It has nothing to do with representing the views of those who hold them; it's all about anal retentivity over the choice of a single word. I'm sure you have no such hangups. Pro-lifers are free to change every reference to "pro-choice" into "baby-killer", and you'll be perfectly okay with that.
As you are clearly incapable of taking a NPOV on this topic, you really ought to refrain from making any edits to it.


banned or significantly restricted in 46 states

I'd like to know what others think of this line from the article. The style guide Words to avoid advices to avoid representing statistics this way. I personally want to know how many states banned the practice altogether. Abortion in the United States says that 31 states allowed abortion to protect the mother's life only, 13 states had laws similar to Colorado's which was fairly liberal, and 2 more allowed abortion in limited instances. So, according to that article 46 states just restricted the practice. Where was it banned? --24.18.211.95 07:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree mostly with your point, I wouldn't call Colorado's laws fairly liberal. The Washington DC laws may have effectively been fairly liberal but the other laws were fairly restrictive from what I can tell Nil Einne 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


"When life begins"

A phrase I've seen repeatedly in abortion discussions, and again in this article, is "when life begins" and variations thereof, as in "hotly debate when life actually begins". The phrase, in its various forms, seems to me to mean something quite different from what the authors are trying to convey. IMHO its poor use of language.

"When life begins" is an issue of ancient history, not contemporary conception. Life began in the magical moment of abiogenesis that preceded the lengthy evolutionary chain of events that led to us - or when a supernatural entity placed the first biengs on this earth, if that is more in line with your religious beliefs.

Its self evident that a sperm cell is alive, as is an egg. Thus, every stage of reproduction, including those prior to conception, is a part of the continuum of life stretching back to the first organisms.

What the authors of such phrases clearly wish to examine or comment on is when "personhood" or "humanity" begins. This is clear from the context of the phrase as used in the article. This concept is not at all the same as when "life" begins. If the language of the article reflects the actual language used by the US Supreme Court, I'm surprised that such an elevated group of erudite individuals would be so inarticulate. farrenh 01:10, 8 October 2005 (GMT+2)

Yes I agree. As a biologist, I always find it funny when people talk about when life begins. As for the question of personhood, I'm reminded of the words of a professor. Specifically how exactly abortion opponents who consider the single celled embryo formed upon fusion of the sperm and an egg a unique person the same as you and me explain what happens when the embryo splits giving rise to twins. Are these still a single unique person? Nil Einne 17:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I never thought of it that way.But since they share the same ginetics and things , in a way there are don't you think??? 3:26 PM Monday November 6th 2006 °•°§•°• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.104.69 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

You're equivocating on the meaning of the word "life" here. By that logic, saying that "life ends at brain death" would be just as nonsensical, since many of the body's cells are still alive at that point. Roughly speaking, "life" can mean either "the state of being alive" or "the period of existence of a living organism". Since the product of conception is clearly a different organism from the sperm and ovum, its "life" (in the second sense of the word) begins at conception. Miraculouschaos 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The eighth paragraph under "Abortion" contains a quote from the "Court" wherein they discussed how it was not necessary to pinpoint when life begins in order to render a verdict. The problem I have with that is mainly that there is no reference specifically citing the source of the quotation. Was it one Justice? Is it in the Roe v. Wade Court document?

Secondly, I think the words of Peter Singer are interesting in this context. In Wikipedia's Peter Singer entry, there is a distinction made between "zoological life" and the kind of life which has meaning and value. In his book about President Bush (of Good and Evil?) (which I've read), Mr. Singer says that there is no wiggle room for whether or not a fetus fits the definition of biological life; it definitely is alive. Also there is no serious debate about whether it is human; the DNA is definitely homo sapiens DNA, and of course the human fetus is human. By the fetus stage, it is definitely an individual human life. The real debate in Roe v. Wade and in society is about whether this human life is worth protecting when the mother chooses to abort the pregnancy, and about whether or not this human life merits legal personhood.

I have wanted to include somewhere the different opinions about life beginning at conception (reasons given for opposing Plan B and the destruction of embryos, considering those practices types of abortions as well), vs. the idea of a separate human life needing to meet certain criteria such as independence, adapted to a particular environment (outside the womb), or human traits such as being able to feel pain, having consciousness, having memory, or the ability to reason. The first opinion meets the biological and scientific definition of life, whereas the second group is much more a philosophical or legal or political or social perspective. Neither of these categories is really a religious issue, but a religious issue might include something such as whether the fetus has a soul, or whether the fetus is a person in God's eyes, or simply what God's law has to say about it. (I don't know where an addition like this would fit into Wikipedia, but I think it is worth having somewhere surrounding this whole abortion issue, along with some kind of link to Pete Singer's observation.)

There is no way to take morality out of law, since every law is based on some moral principle. I thought the Wikipedia article was lacking in mentioning the controversy over whether morality should have a bearing in law, but upon further reflection, this is definitely the way a lot of Americans talk about it, apparently ignoring the obvious truth that every law is a type of moral statement.

Shrommer 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over abortion

Are there any thoughts over the final two sentences in the first paragraph of this section? (That is, the part starting "Some abortion opponents have claimed that there exists a link between abortion and breast cancer...") To me it seems to inappropriately highlight controversial claims of one side without providing any counterbalance or even a mention of the fact that these claims are not generally accepted. I hesitate to insert qualifying statements myself if someone out there with more competence to evaluate competing medical claims wants to make a stab at it. David 08:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about making the following edit to the sentence. In addition to the subtle slant about breast cancer that I see, the sentence itself is awfully cumbersome and too long, in my opinion.
Some abortion opponents have claimed that there exists a link between abortion and breast cancer, and Texas has enacted a law requiring literature advancing this theory be distributed to women considering abortion. However, the National Cancer Institute (a division of the U.S. National Institutes of Health) advises that the available medical research does not support this conclusion at this time [2]. More credibly abortion has been linked to some psychological problems and to a higher risk of future infertility [3].
I'm kind of new to this, so I'm not sure about the advisability of in-line external links. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm completely open before I make the edits. David 05:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the changes since there seemed to be activity on the page, and there were no objections to the above text. The only changes I made to the above were very minor or were made to retain the existing Wiki links in the text. David 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Controversy section appears heavily biased towards the "pro-life" camp. Someone should edit in a more detailed presentation of the "pro-choice" arguments, to even it out. - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Roe decision itself was a "pro-choice" decision, and therefore controversy about it would tend to be from the "pro-life" direction. However, we have tried to even things out by including views from liberal legal scholars who are pro-choice. If you have particular changes that you think we should make, then please share them with us here at the discussion page. Thanks.Ferrylodge 04:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon vs. as early as

I'm inclined to change back the edits made by 128.187.179.214. While all parties participating in the debate might be characterized as believing that life begins "as early as" conception, the sentence as it currently stands refers specifically to the Pro-Life position. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of this group believes instead that life begins upon conception. I can try to dig up cites for this if there's any feeling that this is not the case. I'll hold off making the relevant changes until tomorrow evening to see if there's any community dissent. Thanks David 03:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"fetal life" to "fetal human life"

This is a necessary clarification given the definition of "fetus". Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with allowing the abortion of fetal canine life or fetal bovine life, rather only fetal human life. Nor does the pro-life community concern itself with protecting the "fetal life" of any mammals other than humans. Hence the clarification. This is about as NPOV as can get, given that the unnecessarily latinized term "fetal" seems to be a must-have to those favoring choice in regard to abortion. -- Chris 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your modifcation, you seem to be missing the point. The fetus is a common medical and scientific term used all the time. It is not some odd latin term. The word is important (as is the word human) because we are talking about a fetus here. Nil Einne 17:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Another criticism of Roe (though not one made by the dissenters) is that the majority opinion failed to recognize the personhood of fetal human life, either beginning at conception or later" While it's true that the ruling did not "recognise the personhood..." etc, surely "failed" implies that they should have done so and that the personhood of fetal human life is not in question? Baggabagga 12:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Roe's role in subsequent decisions and politics

The use of 'explicitly' as applied to the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenhood v. Casey struck me oddly. I checked the definition:

1: Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. 2: Fully and clearly defined or formulated: “generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit”(www.dictionary.com)


1 a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films> 2 : fully developed or formulated <an explicit plan> <an explicit notion of our objective> 3 : unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave> (Merriam-Webster, www.m-w.com)

In this instances, and based on Wikipedia's own page on PP v. Casey, I don't think Roe was 'explicitly upheld' in that decisions. Barring objections, I've removed it.

Updates since the Alito Confirmation

I made a small change to eliminate what I perceived as a bit of bias. The sentence that once read:

"With the changes to the Supreme Court that have occurred recently (the death of William Rehnquist in 2005, the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, and their replacement on the Court by John Roberts and Samuel Alito respectively in 2005 and 2006), it remains to be seen whether the current interpretation of Roe will hold much longer."

Now reads: "...it remains to be seen whether the current interpretation of Roe will continue to hold." The original structure seems to imply that the Roe decision is close to being overturned and, more subtly, that it should be overturned. I believe my revision is more objective. ---Bryan Jones

Isn't it axiomatic that all supreme court decision are subject to review and at risk of being overturned by some future court? So if this paragraph is going to be a mini-civics lesson, maybe it should be more timeless, something like: "Roe, like all Supreme Court decisions, will always be periodically revisited with the possibility of being overturned. As the personality of the court changes over time, it remains to be seem whether the current interpretations in all decisions will continue to hold." --JJLatWiki 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

partial-birth abortion - impacted

I was horriffied when I found out what partial-birth abortion meant. And now, I am really glad that case Roe v. Wade affected that case. (Add your opinions)

Dissenting opinions

For all the controversy over this page no analysis appears to be given to the dissenting opinions. Surely the point of an encyclopedic article is not just to quote the text of a decision! Caveat lector 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I once read that Justice Ginsburg considered Roe v Wade to be bad law. Seeing as how she is a strong supporter of abortion rights and would not seek to overturn the decision, I've been fascinated by this. Her opinions would be pretty obviously unbiased, seeing as how she is criticizing something she believes in, or at least would present a far more unbiased opinion than those who find abortion personally repugnant. I came to this article looking for some of the more reasoned and objective constitutional objections to Roe v Wade and came away disappointed. The bits about there being nothing specific in the constitution about it doesn't satisfy me. I'd like to learn about the specific arguments brought by each side of the case and why objective thinkers feel the state's case was the stronger.
Anyone can improve the article. Just keep in mind WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Xiner (talk, email) 00:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wade

As someone who had never known the intracacies of this case, I looked to this article for the details. However, I find it disturbing that after reading through the "History of case" section, just who Wade is is unclear. I had to go to the side info box to even find a wiki-link to read about him. However, even that article doesn't make it overly clear what his role was in the case. After using Wikipedia for over a year, this is the first time where it looks like I will have to go elsewhere to research the subject. Quite disappointing. JPG-GR 05:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I second this. While the plaintiff's role in the case is stated quite clearly, the defendant's is not. Anyone with knowledge on the subject care for a rewrite? —Brim 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars

I reverted the entire article bacj to a version from Nov 29th today (December 2), because in a series of edit wars where folks diligently tried to revert delet vandalism, several sections were lost. I don't believe I removed any legitimate edits, but if I have, let's get them back in and keep this article stable? Brad 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link

I removed the following broken link:

Brad 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

section on liberal criticism of Roe vs. Wade

First of all, someone remove the above "edit." It makes a mockery of wikipedia's attempts at un-biased information and is generally unhelpful. Secondly, I found the section on Ginsburg and other liberals' criticisms of the Roe decision to be very interesting but worded somewhat sneakily:

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and other liberals such as Massachusetts congressman John F. Tierney and editorial writer Michael Kinsley, have criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade as terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which they contend might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights."

The obvious area of concern is the section "terminating a nascent" because this wording is so closely tied with the actual act of abortion. This wording could have various negative effects on the neutrality of the article and seems unnecessary, perhaps even employed as a rhetorical device. I would change the wording myself but because it is possible that Ginsburg, other noted individuals and many liberals in general have used similar wording in their disapproval of the Court's decision, that is, the type of wording that creates a connection between the act of abortion and the act of abandonment of a democratic movement, my assertion that "terminating a nascent" is creating a bias might not be entirely true as it could very well be the type of phrase used by these specific advocates. It's even possible this wording was used by accident and with no intended bias or reference to the act of abortion.

If anyone wants to find out more about this and make the appropriate edit, that would be great. If I find the time I'll invest a little energy into it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2headedboy (talk • contribs)

Deleting Sections on Cancer and Crime

In the "see also" section, there are links to Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis and Legalized abortion and crime effect. I think these links are adequate, and we don't additionally need sections in this article on those subjects. This article is about a court case in 1973, and those two subjects are extremely tangential to the subject of the article.

If no one objects, I'll go ahead and delete those two sections.Ferrylodge 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Abortion is the proper place for such things, if at all. Xiner (talk, email) 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Done.Ferrylodge 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they belong in the See also section, but rather in Abortion, which I'll add to the list. Xiner (talk, email) 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

This article is currently undergoing review to determine if it still meets the criteria for a "featured article." You can provide input. Personally, I think the article is in good shape.Ferrylodge 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

specifics of texas law

Is there a place for the fact that the texas law did not make it a crime for a woman to perform an abortion on herself. It did not make it a crime to seek an abortion from a doctor. It was not a crime to have an abortion. It was a crime for a doctor to perform the abortion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevorhughdavis (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I modified the "holding" on the right side of the page, so that it clarifies: "Texas laws making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy."Ferrylodge 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Citicat

Ferrylodge, why do you have a problem with a listing of current polls in a section (saying polls are "problematic") when yesterday you had no problem listing a six-year old poll as a source in the same section? I'm attempting to take a WP:NPOV, suggest you do the same or work on an article you do not have a personal feeling for. Citicat 14:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have just inserted a subtitle here, because your comment is not related to specifics of the Texas law. Second, I have reverted your recent deletion of a large portion of the article, which you did without any discussion, and for no apparent reason.
Regarding your question, I did previously revert an edit you made. I exaplained in the edit summary that the edit was not well-written (e.g. the word "while" was used twice in one sentence, the word "majority" was misspelled, and only one of the two words "Supreme Court" was capitalized).
I also said in the edit summary that "Poll questions on Roe are problematic, and are in "Public Opinion" section." I did not say that all polls are problematic. There is a whole section in this article devoted to polls about Roe. If you would like to discuss polls about Roe, then why not do so in the section on that subject? That section discusses the poll questions asked, and gives poll results dating back to 1973. Your edit did not mention any particular poll, and instead vaguely cited a bunch of different polls.
I also stated in the edit summary that the section you were editing "Already says large majority support legality of some abortions." How can there be any kind of NPOV problem if the section you were editing already says that a large majority supports abortion rights? You were actually proposing to delete the word "large", so it seems very peculiar for you to suggest that I have some sort of NPOV issue here.Ferrylodge 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If there are misspellings, then the appropriate action is to correct the spelling, not to remove the edit. By the way, you just made a misspelling "I exaplained in the edit summary" but still, I'm not going to remove your comment. I didn't say that you claimed all polls were problematic, I stated that you removed a link to polls in the same section where you posted a poll the previous day, and used that as reasoning. Your poll link did not mention it was a poll from 2000, you weren't using it as historical context, but as current opinion. The word "large" can be said to be NPOV itself. What majority is a large majority? Meanwhile, you still don't address the main issue, that you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Citicat 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am going to drop out of this discussion now, while you may feel I'm attempting to take the other side of the abortion discussion, I'm actually just trying keep articles adhering to Wiki guidelines. Good luck on your future editing. Citicat 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
While you may feel that I am using Wikipedia as a "soapbox", I am trying to keep articles neutral and factual according to Wiki guidelines. I don't think your criticisms are supported. The portion of the article to which you objected is as follows:
"Also, a large majority of Americans believe that, while some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester.<FN>
<FN>Rubin, Allisa. 'Americans Narrowing Support for Abortion,' Los Angeles Times (2000-06-18). Retrieved 2007-02-02. (Reporting that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men.)"
The link after the word "large" provides poll results from 2003, which is not ancient history. The footnote specifically says that the article is from "2000-06-18." If you're asserting that the word "large" is an NPOV problem, then are you saying that I have a pro-choice bias? Before you said I have a pro-life bias. So, while I appreciate your interest, I do not think that I have been using Wikipedia as a soapbox.Ferrylodge 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

JPerkins

Regarding a recent edit by jperkins, the edit had two parts. The first part of the edit was to delete the following material from the article:

"Also, a large majority of Americans believe that, while some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester.<FN>
<FN>Rubin, Allisa. 'Americans Narrowing Support for Abortion,' Los Angeles Times (2000-06-18). Retrieved 2007-02-02. (Reporting that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men.)"

The edit summary says, "cited source does not support proposition." The cited source says, among other things, that 65% of people believe abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the second trimester. Why is it not proper to conclude that a large majority believes Roe v. Wade went too far? I will restore the deleted material for the time being, but without the word "large" (which may be ambiguous). Incidentally, jperkins, have you read the cited article by Alissa Rubin? Have you clicked on the wikilink in the material you deleted?

The second part of the edit added the following sentence in the "Public Opinion" section:

"A pro-choice counterargument, however, is that a portion of the 47% answering the question in the negative might have done so believing that a woman's right to an abortion should extend beyond three months."

The explanation left at my talk page was: "As a matter of logic, the same logic pro-life group uses to attack statistics applies to pro-choice arguments. That is an encyclopedic fact." I do not understand what is meant by these two sentences, and would appreciate elaboration. Wikipedia's job is to states facts, not make arguments. Prior to the edit, this article did not say what the 47% did believe or didn't believe. Has this counter-argument been made in any sort of publication? This article is not supposed to make arguments or counter-arguments. This statement about a hypothetical pro-choice counter-argument should include a footnote or else it is not neutral.

Additionally, here is the poll question to which 47% responded negatively:

"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?"

I would find it very difficult to believe that anyone would have responded negatively to this question because they believed that abortion should be legal for more than the first trimester. Just because someone supports one part of the Roe v. Wade decision (legalizing abortion during 1st trimester) does not imply that they don't support another part too (legalizing abortion during 2d trimester). In any event, absent some citation to some source that makes this far-fetched argument, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to make this argument all by ourselves. So, I'll revert the recently added sentence, for the time being.Ferrylodge 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi. As for my first edit, the wikilink does not link to the full text of the article, but rather an article abstract. Citing to an abstract is, I believe, disingenuous when the underlying principle of wikipedia objectivity is massive peer review.
As for my second edit, first, it must be understood in the context of the paragraph it edited. The paragraph stated that "49 percent [of poll respondents] now support Roe vs. Wade." The next two sentences read in conjunction with each other suggest that "pro-life groups" assert the poll results are inaccurate because poll asked respondents to opine about "Roe vs. Wade" without specifically asking about late-term abortions. My edit emphasized that the implied argument of these two sentences regarding the poll results can support both sides of the issue.
Second, regarding my lack of citations, I think we need to distinguish between empirical and analytical propositions. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to state without citation that "pro-life groups have argued" something, because their arguing something is observable in the real world. Surely, however, it is appropriate to state that 1 + 1 = 2 without citing a source in support. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic#Addition_.28.2B.29. The statement that the logic of a given argument can be used against the proponent of the argument falls into this latter category of propositions. So long as the statement is presented objectively, it remains faithful to the wikipedia's encylopedic nature. Indeed, presenting one analytical argument without presenting the corresponding oppositing argument violates NPOV. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view ("The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.").
Finally, when I checked the Article's history, I noticed that comments exist below your revisions that do not exist in the article's text. How do you comment like that? Jperkins683 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. As to the first edit, the "wikilink" links here. That's separate from the footnote, which you correctly note links to an abstract of an LA Times article. The abstract allows people to pay a small fee to read the full article. The material in the deleted sentence ("Also, a large majority of Americans believe that, while some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester") is supported by either the "wikilink" or the footnote. I agree with you that it's useful to support statements by using material that is available on the internet. However, this is not a requirement. For example, see the abortion article, footnotes 14-16, 34, 36, and 55. In any event, the wikilink (which links here) does provide footnotes to stuff that is available on the internet for free, if you’d rather not pay for the LA Times material.
As for your second edit, the paragraph in the article did NOT originally state that "49 percent [of poll respondents] now support Roe vs. Wade." Instead, it stated that Harris says so: i.e. “the Harris organization concluded from this poll that ‘49 percent now support Roe vs. Wade.’” Big difference. The point that the pro-life groups were making is that Harris was jumping to conclusions, and incorrectly stating what people think about Roe v. Wade when in fact the poll only dealt with one particular portion of Roe v. Wade.
You could argue that Harris was correct to conclude from their poll that 49% support Roe, even though the poll only asked about PART of Roe, but that would be a far-fetched argument, and no one (to my knowledge) has ever made it. Instead, you argue that pro-life groups have said the 47% (who answered the Harris Poll in the negative) all opposed abortion in the first trimester. But when did the pro-life groups say that? You acknowledge that it would be inappropriate to state without citation that "pro-life groups have argued" something, but isn’t that what you have done? The paragraph in question merely implies that (according to pro-life groups) Harris should not have jumped to a conclusion about Roe by asking about only part of it.
You are correct that it is appropriate to state that 1 + 1 = 2 without citing a source in support. But you are saying something that is not anywhere as clear as 1+1=2. Your second edit implied two things: (1) pro-life groups assert that the entire 47% opposes abortion in the first trimester, and (2) pro-choice groups would argue that some of that 47% actually favored the part of Roe that allows first trimester abortions. Neither of those two conclusions is as obvious as 1+1=2 (and I find the second conclusion more implausible than the first). So, it seems to me that cites would be needed for both of these two statements. Aren't they both statements that you were trying to make?
You are correct that presenting one analytical argument without presenting the corresponding opposite argument violates NPOV. But where has anyone but yourself presented the conflicting views (1) and (2)? If an article about Greenland says it has a cold climate, there is no obligation to present the conflicting view that it is packed with palm trees, unless perhaps someone credible has made that argument. I’m not saying that points (1) and (2) are quite as outlandish as that, but still they ought to be supported by some kind of evidence.
Regarding your last question, I’m not sure I understand the question. In the Article's history, whenever someone makes an edit, comments can be inserted in the edit summary. Your most recent comments in the edit summaries were: “added to discussion of statistical poll” and “cited source does not support proposition.” Since you were already able to comment like that, I’m not sure what you’re still asking how to do.Ferrylodge 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your comment about my first edit, I see now that the wikilink points to another page with sources. I do not have time to check those citations right now. The LA Times abstract does NOT state "that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men," as does the footnote's parenthetical.
As to the second edit, we agree that the paragraph states that "[t]he point that the pro-life groups were making is that Harris was jumping to conclusions, and incorrectly stating what people think about Roe v. Wade when in fact the poll only dealt with one particular portion of Roe v. Wade." That is, the group concluded that, possibly, more than 47% of people do not support Roe v. Wade, but the survey does not reflect that because of the wording of its questions. My edit demonstrated that, similarly, USING THE SAME REASONING, it's POSSIBLE that more than 49% of people support Roe v. Wade: People MIGHT not support its "first three months" holding because they'd prefer, e.g., a "first six months" holding. The poll does not reflect this possibility because of the wording of its questions. This is not an argument. It is a valid proposition about the LOGIC, not the SUBSTANCE of the pro-life groups' argument. Not only did I state this proposition objectively, rather than adversarily, but my presenting it counterbalanced the otherwise onesidedness of the paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jperkins683 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I have edited the footnote in the article referring to the LA Times. The footnote now quotes the LA Times directly. I hope that will be viewed as an improvement. I'll get to your second point momentarily.Ferrylodge 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your second point, the article presently says, "Pro-life groups assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion." That seems to be the sentence that is causing trouble here. You're drawing an inference from this quoted sentence that the pro-life groups view the poll as proving more than 47% opposition to Roe v. Wade, and you're also supposing that pro-choice groups would claim Harris was not misreporting. I still think you're over-reaching, and doing so without any citations to support yourself. Maybe the pro-life groups view the Harris poll as inconclusive, rather than as underestimating opposition to Roe. Maybe the pro-choice groups would view it as unlikely that a person would say they oppose the part of Roe allowing first trimester abortions, even while that person supports the legality of first trimester abortions. At present, this Wikipedia article does not say how those groups view those matters.
Having said all that, perhaps a small edit would eliminate this whole problem. If you like, we could amend the offending sentence so that it says, "Critics assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion" instead of "Pro-life groups assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion." What do you think about that?Ferrylodge 02:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding the LA Times Poll, the cited abstract does not state that 72% of women and 58% of men, totaling 65% of respondents, do not support late term abortions. Moreover, even if the abstract did state those numbers, I think it is biased to include in the main text the number for women (which is the highest) rather than the number for all respondents.
As for the second issue, I think you offer a fair compromise. I would modify it to read "Critics on both sides of the issue assert that the media often misreport polls on abortion." (Note "misreport" as being in the plural.) I would either (1) add at the end of the sentence a footnote containing the current note 34 as well as a link to this discussion, or (2) add a link to this discussion after "both sides of the issue" and use current note 34 at the end of the sentence. I think this should suffice until a citation to a pro-choice criticism of the statistics can be found. What do you think? Jperkins683 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it was particularly biased to only mention the 72% of women in the text, and only mention the 58% of men in the footnote. Men and women are, after all, situated a little bit differently regarding the abortion issue. Nevertheless, I have no problem sticking the 58% number into the text too. I've just done so.
Regarding the other issue, discussion pages are not adequate sources for article footnotes. Therefore, I would object to the phrase "on both sides." Other than that, your proposal looks okay.Ferrylodge 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The 58% statement would be fine if the abstract mentioned that number, which it does not. I would add "both sides" to the sentence, then in the citation, write "See, e.g., [content of current footnote]." Alternatively, you could add "citation needed" after "both sides." I presume you would prefer one of these options rather than my original edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jperkins683 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I have edited the article to change "Pro-life groups" to "Critics". This is actually a more appropriate edit than I realized at first. If you go to the footnote, and read the linked press release of a pro-life group, it in turn links to opinions from various journalists agreeing that polls have been misreported.
However, I have not seen any evidence at all that any pro-choice groups have agreed that polls about Roe have been misreported. I see absolutely nothing wrong with footnoting the press release from the pro-life group. I suppose we could use the opinions from the various journalists instead of the opinion of the pro-life group, but the pro-life group would still appear in the linked URL, so I hardly see the point. If you find that any pro-choice group has asserted that Roe polls have been misreported, then we can add that to the footnote.
Regarding the linked abstract, the abstract is linked so that people who doubt the veracity of the direct quote can pay less than four dollars to confirm its veracity. Wikipedia has zillions of perfectly acceptable footnotes that don't even do that much; i.e. they provide no link at all, and instead just cite to some library book or other source that is not available via internet. I already gave you some specific examples of such Wikipedia footnotes at the abortion page. Could it perhaps be a POV problem that you're objecting to this footnote, and not to those zillions of other footnotes?
P.S. I've also changed "misreports" to "misreport". Can we call it a night?Ferrylodge 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded this controversial sentence based on [4]. The previous version was simply incorrect. They poll specifically asked what the respondents felt about Roe v. Wade, and a majority said they thought it was good for the country. It is original research to assume that the 2nd trimester disapproval translates to RvW disapproval. I have reworded the section to more accurately reflect the actual poll numbers. -Andrew c 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to rewording the sentence in question so that it reflects the footnoted and linked material as accurately as possible. However, I am not sure that it is useful to bring in additional subjects that have not been identified as controversial by this article, such as “third trimester” abortions. This article already says that, according to Roe, “the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester….” If that is true, then I don’t see how public opinion about third trimester abortions has any relevance to controversy about Roe, in this article. Mentioning third trimester abortions here is not only of questionable relevance; it also obscures the fact that the cited and linked polls asked specifically about second trimester abortions, without blending together “second and third trimesters” in the poll questions or poll results.
Prior to the most recent edits by Andrew C., the sentence in question said this:
“Also, a majority of Americans believe that, while some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester.”
Following the most recent edits by Andrew C., the sentence in question says this:
“While a majority of Americans believe that abortions performed in the second and third trimesters should generally be illegal, they also believe first trimester abortions should generally be legal, and a more narrow majority felt that the Roe v. Wade decision was good for the country.”
Because mentioning third trimester abortion is of questionable relevance, and because it obscures the results for second trimester abortions, and because no reason was provided for bringing up poll results about the third trimester, I will edit the sentence to read as follows:
“While a majority of Americans believe that abortions performed in the second trimester should generally be illegal, they also believe first trimester abortions should generally be legal.”
As you can see, I have also deleted the last phrase about poll results on Roe. There is a section of the article devoted specifically to polls about Roe, and discussing problems with those polls. I think discussion about Roe poll results belongs in that section, where the poll questions can be specifically quoted. The way I have edited the sentence in question, I don’t think there can be the slightest cause to say it is incorrect, or unsupported by the cited and linked material.
Incidentally, I think the sentence was also fine the way it was prior to Andrew C's edits. The cited sources say, among other things, that 65% of people believe abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the second trimester. Why is it not proper to conclude that a large majority believes Roe v. Wade went too far? That's not original research, it's simple logic. Anyway, the matter should be moot now.Ferrylodge 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Your changes are acceptable. I can understand how adding 3rd trimester can seem irrelevant and confusing (as to what the question was being asked). I added the information not considering those thing, thinking it was helpful to include more information about the majority opinion (according to that poll). I will explain a little more about why your previous wording was problematic. You said that "a majority of Americans believe that... Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester". The question was not on the public's opinion of the Roe decision, but was on their opinion regarding legality during different trimesters. The same poll asked a question concerning the public's opinion on Roe, and a slim majority of the respondents said that Roe was "good for the country". So to say that a majority of America believe that Roe went to far, while also saying that a majority of America believe Roe was good for the country seems confusing. Since the former was a product of your rationalization and the latter was a product of the poll in question, I tend to rely on the polls findings. And speaking of polls, I think its worth mentioning in the polls section that basically every poll that asked a similar question on [5] got a different result than the Harris Poll. I'm not saying remove the Harris Poll, just add a few other examples in that section (and perhaps cut down on the commentary about the Harris Poll). I mean, what's up with that sentence "Roe decided that a woman can get an abortion for any reason, without regard to what her doctor advises".-Andrew c 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, you say, "The same poll asked a question concerning the public's opinion on Roe, and a slim majority of the respondents said that Roe was 'good for the country'." That's just not correct. Here's what the LA Times article said about public opinion on Roe:
"43% of current survey respondents express support for Roe, compared with 56% in 1991....In a 1996 poll, 46% of respondents endorsed Roe vs. Wade. By 1999, support had slipped slightly to 43%, the same level as in the current poll."
43% is not a majority. And I might add that the 43% figure indicates LOWER support for Roe than was indicated in the Harris poll. If you want to expand the section on public opinion, will you include these LA Times results showing lower support for Roe? I urge you to present suggested revisions in the discussion section first, because this whole article has just been through a featured article review in which these matters were carefully considered, not to mention the recent edits made in cooperation with jperkins. Also, if additional Roe poll results are going to be included, then the poll questions would have to be presented as well, and I see little purpose in presenting further poll questions that are equally or more slanted than the Harris Poll question.Ferrylodge 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not have access to the LA Times article (I have access to a large number of university resources, included Lexis-Nexis, but I cannot access this article, without paying). Sorry for the confusion, I understand that the reference is pointing to the LA Times abstract, but I was under the (apparently false) impression that numbers were coming from the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003 that found "In the second three months of pregnancy" legal-25%, illegal-68%. This is completely my mistake, because I clicked on the "majority of Americans believe" link and confused the sources used there with the sources used here. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll is the one that has the question specifically about public opinion of Roe, with 53% saying it was a good thing for the country. The sentence is ok as it is now, so I'll let that issue go. As for the Harris Poll, there are good things and bad things about it. They have the best record for asking the same question for year after year back till the 70s. On the other hand, you point out that the phrasing of the question is controversial if not misleading, so maybe it wouldn't hurt to mention some polls that are more straight forward is all that I am saying (that, and a large number of polls have different results than the Harris Poll).-Andrew c 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Just as an aside, I'm kind of surprised you can't get the LA Times article on Lexis. If you have a credit card and can afford the $3.95 fee, you can get the full text via the link in the footnote.
Anyway, it may at first seem like some other poll question about Roe is more straightforward than the Harris poll question, but it really takes a lot of digging to find out for sure. Consider the Harris poll itself. If you go here, you’ll find no hint that the poll question was slanted regarding the decision-making role of doctors, because they only divulge part of the poll question. To get the full Harris poll question, you have to go here.
So, you may find that polls like the LA Times poll show less support for Roe than Harris found, and you may also find other polls that show more support for Roe than Harris found, but it still requires an enormous investment of time and energy and research to find out for sure what the full poll question was. One thing is clear: the Harris poll results are somewhere in the middle, with other polls showing more support and still other polls showing less support. For all of its flaws and slanting, Harris is a fairly reputable company, so my preference would be to just leave the public opinion section as it is. Also, as you pointed out, one of the main advantages of Harris is that we can look at trends going back to 1973. Notice that the table in the public opinion section does not indicate overall support for Roe; it only indicates how support has shifted over time. As far as I know, that kind of trend data is not available from other polls.Ferrylodge 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Section on Misimpressions?

There should be a section about misimpressions about ROE. I constantly see articles in the media say that ROE "legalized" abortion, with the implication that if ROE were overturned abortion would become "illegal" again. In reality overturning Roe would allow the controversy to be decided through the democratic process, as most advanced countries have done. How many of the "pro-ROE" respondents in the poll understand this? As for those that don't, how can their opinions in favor of "ROE" have any validity? The real question is not "ROE" but "when should abortion be or not be allowed?" CharlesTheBold 06:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Charles. At present, the article does quote Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas on this point: "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so." Also, footnote 34 of the article links to a discussion of the "OVERTURNING-EQUALS-TOTAL-BAN MYTH."
The section on public opinion discusses the myth that a woman's doctor has decision-making power, and discusses the myth that Roe only legalized abortion during the first trimester. So, I think the article debunks the myths pretty well. You're right that this article could discuss the fact that other advanced democracies have resolved this issue democratically rather than by judicial edict, but that's really an international law issue that is probably better addressed at the article on abortion law, I think. Maybe we could add a brief section at the end of this article on "Common misconceptions", but it might be redundant in view of the other stuff in this article.Ferrylodge 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but that footnote (34) is labelled "Press Release from National Right to Life". Given the polarized nature of the debate, people who favor Roe-vs-Wade because they confuse it with "legalized abortion" are probably not going to bother reading it, or to believe it if they do. That's why we need an objective source like Wikipedia that can state facts. CharlesTheBold 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point about note 34. But suppose we added a new section on myths about Roe. In the new section, we would discuss, for example, the myth that overturning Roe would mean abortion would automatically become illegal. The primary evidence that we would cite to counter that myth would be a quote like this from Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist: "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so." However, that quote is already in the article, so wouldn't it be redundant?
I sympathize with your desire to clear up myths about this decision. I'm just concerned that other editors would object to redundancy, plus a million other objections that always arise when this article is edited.Ferrylodge 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also another large misconception that needs to be considered, that RvW is about a woman's right to control her own body (commonly raised). The text of the actual decision will state that the true right granted in RvW is the right to be free from the burdens of motherhood. It is this distinction that needs to be apparent to show that the State's implementation of this decision violates the 14th amendment as it gives no "right to be free from the burdens of fatherhood" and therefore does not provide equal protection under the law. Excerpt of the important text below:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation."

74.192.34.19 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Primacy

Here's a recent edit that I'm going to revert. The reason given is "NPOV". The deleted stuff is in bold:

“ Another criticism of Roe (though not one made by the dissenters) is that the majority opinion failed to recognize the personhood of fetal human life, either beginning at conception or later. Supporters describe Roe as vital to preservation of women's equality, personal freedom, privacy, and the primacy of individual rights, although the opposition to Roe often references the primacy of the individual when referring to the fetus. ”

This deleted stuff has been in the article for about a year. See here. I don't see why it presents a POV problem. No elaboration was given for the edit. It is objectively true that, while pro-choice people emphasize a woman's individual rights, pro-life people emphasize individual rights of the fetus (and of family members who would protect the fetus). So, I really don't see an NPOV problem here. Am I missing something?Ferrylodge 12:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The issue is not a factual one, but one of undue weight. Even-handedness is the soul of impartiality, and to bookend one side's argument with the other's is unfair. Besides, lead paragraphs are all about conciseness. There's plenty of room in the body to elaborate on the exact arguments of the two camps. Deltabeignet 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be undue weight to mention that supporters of Roe cite the primacy of women's rights, without mentioning that opponents cite the primacy of fetal rights? Why should the former be mentioned but not the latter?Ferrylodge 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I took another look at the paragraph and realized that there was no reason to say both "personal freedom" and "primacy of individual rights". I cut the text in dispute and the primacy bit, circumventing the problem. Deltabeignet 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Your edit looks okay to me.Ferrylodge 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Harris Interactive Poll

I think the "Public Opinon" poll added on the front page was a little decieptive. Here is the orginial Table:

1973

1976

1979

1981

1985

1989

1991

1992

1993

1996

1998

2005

 2006

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

 %

Favor

52

59

60

56

50

59

65

61

56

52

57

52

 49

Oppose

42

28

37

41

47

37

33

35

42

41

41

47

 47

Not Sure/ Refused

7

13

3

3

3

4

4

4

3

7

2

1

 4


I think it's a much better way than the table on the front page. Anyone else agree?

The "Public Opinon" poll table on the front page was designed to prevent it from being deceptive. The problem is that the poll question incorrectly implied that Roe only legalized abortion in the first trimester, when actually it legalized abortion in the second trimester too (i.e. up until viability for any reason a woman chooses). Thus, the poll results may be a good indicator of the public opinion trend, but not a good indicator of the total support or opposition.Ferrylodge 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Leigao84 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Roe and anti-Roe

The following sentence was recently edited to insert the parentheticals: "Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into 'pro-choice' (pro-abortion) and 'pro-life' (anti-abortion) camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides."

In my opinion, this sentence could use clarification, but the parentheticals do not do the job. First of all, someone who is pro-choice may also consider himself or herself to be opposed to abortion, and only in favor of a right to make such a tragic choice. At the same time, it's true that the words "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are not self-explanatory for someone unfamiliar with this whole issue, and so parentheticals could possibly be helpful here. I think a better way to change the sentence would be like this: "Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-Roe (mostly pro-choice) and anti-Roe (mostly pro-life) camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides." I'll go ahead and make this change, which I think makes the article more accurate. Note that this article has an entire section explaining that many liberal scholars are pro-choice but anti-Roe.Ferrylodge 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dickey Amendment, Plan B, et cetera

The article was recently edited to include these new italicized sentences:

Some pro-life supporters argue that life begins upon conception, and thus the unborn should be entitled to legal protection. Based on this argument, these pro-lifers argue against the Plan B "contraception" and any intentional destruction of living human embryos, citing that they contain unique human DNA, and match the biological definition of life (contains cells, require nourishment, homeostasis etc.) Acknowledging America's pluralism, President Clinton signed the first Dickey Amendment in 1995, as a "policy of silence", whereby the federal government would neither ban destructive embryo research, nor fund it. President Bush slightly relaxed that decision in 2001. [6]

I'm sure that this stuff is accurate, but I don't think it belongs at this location, or even in this article. The section is titled "Controversy" which of course means controversy about Roe v. Wade. I think, therefore, that this material should be in another article instead, for example in an article about the pro-life movement, or about the Stem cell controversy, or about Plan B, or the like. So, I'm going to remove it from this article. If there's any objection to the removal, I hope we can talk about it here on the talk page before proceeding further. Thanks.Ferrylodge 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I just ran across your comments here now in the discussion. Thank you. I'll give it some thought and come back on it, perhaps in a different article, like you say.

Shrommer 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)