Talk:Abortion in the United States/Archive 1

Ambiguous terminology
From 1st paragraph:


 * In the U.S., a movement to ban abortion altogether has some political clout, even though the practice is presently legal.

Saying "the practice is presently legal" is ambiguous, so it shouldn't be in the first paragraph - a place where we usually sum things up (or introduce them). The practice is subject to restrictions as to timing. AFAIK a woman can't just cancel her pregnancy one week before delivery, saying I changed my mind; I don't want to have it -- the article goes on to talk about trimesters and deadlines.
 * Is it possible to say that the party that is in government has an effect on law regarding abortions and that while the majority of the population may or may not have voted for him he will now be making decisions that will effect the Supreme Court likely with abortion in mind (maybe that should be later on, but its how i would try to deal with it). Also how about Abortion in legal in the US to start off with. The talk of trimesters and deadlines (as i see it) is because Roe. vs Wade was based on trimesters. A weird way of getting women access to abortion but it became between the docto and the woman under privacy. This has effected many legal aspects of access to abortion although the Planned Parenthood case seems to be different than that directions. The other interesting thing about trimesters is how early many women have abortions. Most have it about as soon as they can if they are going to. Most 3rd term abortions are for genetic abnormalities that weren't detected earlier, although there are exceptions (page mentions quebec looking for a doctor who will do 3rd term abortions...more is available on Abortion in Canada... even with no abortion law in Canada there can still be limits.) They are however not legal limits...a doctor is not forced to perform abortions (not that i've ever heard of). The article on Quebec showed that it was dispoportnitely the poor and disadvantaged that needed a 3rd term abortion that was not directly for health reasons--Marcie 03:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, balancing "it is presently legal" vs. "movement to ban it altogether" is way too polarizing. It makes it sound like an all or nothing deal. There are some advocates, of course, who may WANT to make it LEGAL in all cases; as well as some advocates who want to make it ILLEGAL in all cases. The article should make it clear what proportion of people hold those views.

Is the US polarized between, say 45% saying ban it altogether vs. 45% saying make it legal in all cases? I haven't seen any such statistics yet. --Uncle Ed 17:58, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

NPOV wording
Just a note on NPOV wording the article. The Pro-Choice crowd call the Pro-Life crowd "Ant-Choice" or "Anti-Abortion." Conversely, the Pro-Life crowd call the Pro-Choice crowd "Anti-Life." All "Anti-" terms are loaded and POV. I changed a few instances of usage of "Anti-Abortion" to "Pro-Life" since this is how this party refers to itself. Any comments? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 15:14, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I noticed that RickK reverted all the edits by 4.154.244.130. All the user had done was change anti-abortion to pro-life.  What was so objectionable about that?  As I noted above, almost a month ago, calling pro-life people anti-abortion is inherantly POV.  Should we call pro-choice people "anti-life"?  Please state convincing arguments here or I'll change the statements back to pro-life.  The only thing objectionable I saw in the changes was that pro-life was usually capitalized as Pro-Life.  That certainly didn't warrant a revert, just a copyedit. Peace. :-)    &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 19:06, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * When the anti-abortion crowd start protesting the death penalty, then they will have earned the right to the pro-life label. Until then, the appropriate term is the term that describes their position.  -- Mwanner 18:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that Wikipedia convention is "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Anti-abortion, though accurate (whereas anti-life is not descriptive of the pro-choice movement, but I digress) is a label which has the potential to cause a lot of trouble, since proponents of that political ideology prefer the term "pro-life" &mdash; to avoid arguments, I feel that using the convention is more appropriate in this case, and that if you disagree changing the convention rather than a few wordings on pages is not productive. &mdash; zootm 10:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say that pro-life is more of a POV phrase since it can be disputed whether the child is alive in the same way. However I think that it is more accurate to call the activists groups by the names they use for themselves

Abortion Law in the US
The part on pre-Roe law is a bit skimpy. It doesn't mention anything about the Physician's Crusade.

Additional information
I've posted this to the Roe v.s Wade area for discussion as well. I'm not quite sure in which it would go, but it is something that Canadians follow about American abortion law and notice (we keep track of your Supreme Court Decisions because they often have an impact on ours, although less so in this case it seems

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!

I must say i'm mistified that the costs and coverage to getting an abortion aren't covered...we have a section on the Canadian page in it and its a lot less contentious here (which does NOT mean it doesn't have problems...it does--Marcie 23:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Biased Statements
The reference to laws and controversy regarding "partial birth abortion" are innaccurate and unqualified. "Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term and is, in fact, the politically slanted terminology used to discuss the Dilation and Extraction technique of abortion, which is hardly ever used in the manner that the words "partial birth" seem to suggest.--216.87.207.1 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the article on partial birth abortion discuss whether the term is misleading?Ferrylodge 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many catholics do not support the position of the church leadership including a number of national political leaders.

Could just as easily say "many Catholics SUPPORT the position...".

68.46.123.33 20:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to perhaps put in a sentence that says that the Catholic church is against abortion but that Catholics in American make their own decisions regarding abortion and birth control...or in some other way saying its clear that not everyone is following what the Catholic church says (or not all of it anyway). Up here they are about to legalize gay marriage (already legal in 7 provinces/territories) and the Pope or someone high up anyway...I’d have to look it up) has said that any politician that supports it should not be allowed communion...and a lot more of our politicians are Catholic in Canada than in the e US (including the Prime Minister). The general response has been that it is a matter of the state and not one of religion and that they as politicians are not going to force their religious beliefs on others. Kerry said something similar during the presidential debates...i have the debates saved(in text form so it should be easy to find) would a quote from there be helpful perhaps? As for actual difficulties in access my reading (from Canada of course) is that the problem is coming more from Fundamentalist Christians wanting to ban abortion than Catholics...of course this is a POV unless someone wants to find another way to word it.

Oh and thanks for whoever put a nicely worded version of the issue i wanted addressed but wasn't sure how to word regarding the position of women with disabilities and of races other than white, and a few other things i'd commented on but not changed.

Do let me know if the quote (debates) would be helpful or maybe some statistics...i tend to find those things easier than most...and if i can't find it i won't --Marcie 01:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't any such statement unnecessary anyway? Certainly, it seems obvious that members of a religion, political party, or other such organizations are free to carry their own opinions on matters. It is not, for instance, surprising or relevant to state all of the ways in which some Democratic voters disagree with the official party platform. Perhaps the reference could simply be removed?

Reversion
I reverted the edit that changed the discussion of law in the United States and how it is related to trimester back to a previous version as the version that was put in was incorrect. I have read Roe. vs. Wade (the legal decision) and the article is factually incorrect. The Planned Parenthood case changed things but i it is still unclear what limits the government can put on abortions as the case is a relatively new decision (in the mid 90's...likely an article can be found on the case here...otherwise i might take up writing one with those interested. It is obvious the government still takes the idea that it can legislate seriously as the Bush government recently passed legislationlimits third trimester abortions. Therefore it is obvious that the government can legislate in the United States at the moment. So far the decision has been turned over in three state Supreme Courts. That means it still operates in all the other states and i believe the federal government is appealing in the states where the decision was overturned (i believe Washington was one state and New York was definitely one of the other states). Roe vs. Wade was quite specific and is what the article is based on because of the impact it still has on American abortion law....first term the state has no say whatsoever, second term the interests and privacy of the mother need to be balanced against the needs of the state and in the third term the government has the right to be a large part of the decision. although this is currently being challenged. Just because the government didn't make any laws before did not mean it was not able to make laws. How many laws it can make is up to the Supreme Court. And the decision regarding trimesters had to do specifically with viability of the fetus, and the judges said so in their ruling. For a more detailed discussion see Roe v. Wade. It should be noted that the Roe v. Wade page has been granted the status of a " a featured article. We believe it to be one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work." by Wikipedia.

Selected quotes from that article include:

The Court declared, "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

Relying on the current state of medical knowledge, the decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests with the individual's constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a state can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit.--Marcie 22:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MamaGeek Joy You are not considering companion decision Doe v. Bolton, which is explained in the Roe v. Wade section of this article. In the U.S. today there is abortion on demand up until birth. Roe v. Wade was not the only decision relating to abortion in the U.S., and I don't see why you'd discount the other cases. By saying that the legal consensus is that abortion is only legal in the U.S. in the first trimester, you are gravely misrepresenting the truth.

The official report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, issued after extensive hearings on the Human Life Federalism Amendment (proposed by Senators Hatch and Eagleton), concluded:

"Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy." Report, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on Senate Joint Resolution 3, 98th Congress, 98-149, June 7, 1983, p. 6

See this website for Constitutional Law and Abortion: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm

This Pro-Life site appears to have a good summary as well: http://www.aclife.org/education/court.html


 * The Doe v. Bolton case refers regularly to the Roe. v Wade case and says that many points do not need to be reargued as a result of that case and DOES dicuss trimesters and the viability of the fetus. I didn't refer to the Doe v. Bolton case as it basically decides the same way about different legislation and therefore makes it clearer which legislation could be allowed. The ruling is about what laws are going to be legal now that Roe. v. Wade has occured. But since you seem to want to discuss the case i've put in what seems to be the discussion of how trimesters are viewed differently within the Doe. Bolton case.

This follows. Italics and text in [] is mine.


 * If you want to discuss which laws are around...well that is a different matter. I'll grant you there are not many laws that limit abortion. But the Roe and Doe case allowed there to be laws. I don't think a Senate committee view that is 20 years old has much bearing however as the Reagan government and subsequently George H. W. Bush had the chance to add new members to the Supreme Court and many of the decisions changed as a result.


 * I will grant you that most of the legislations has instead focused on making it difficult to see a doctor to have an abortion in a miriad of different ways instead of outright banning of abortion. This is because the Doe v Bolton and Roe v Wade decisions were so strong.


 * However George W. Bush recently passed legislation banning ][partial birth abortions|partial birth abortions]]. While it is unclear exactly what will happen as it has been thrown out by three Supreme Courts that still makes it law at this point in the other US states that remain. It seems to me that it is a law regarding abortion...and even then it is dealing with the third trimester which is where the Roe. v. Wade decision held that the state could have the most say.


 * I don't see given the wording inside the Doe. v. Bolton case how you can say that the trimester issue does not exist. Its made clear in the case that they are still holding the same views on trimesters and says that the state can start putting limits after the first trimester. The case says this very clearly. What it says is that the Georgia law was not in keeping with the kind of restraints that could be in place...especially since they effected all three trimesters. It also goes on to discuss why certain types of restrictions would not be allowed regardless of the trimester of the fetus.


 * The case is available at :http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=179


 * if you want to go and read it yourself. Baring further discussion i will reword it to say that there has not been much legislation written regarding the actual ban of abortion at most points although Roe. v. Wade allows it, because of how restrictive Roe. v. Wade was and because after cases like Bolton it because clear that it would just be easier to make it hard to get an abortion by limiting funding and where you can have a clinic. And i will add in that George W. Bush has moved away from this and has passed a law that bans abortion based in large part on trimester (it is also about the way an abortion is done). I haven't included the disenting opinions here as they weren't the opions that won in the case...you can certainly find different views of the law there.

U.S. Supreme Court DOE v. BOLTON, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) 410 U.S. 179 DOE ET AL. v. BOLTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA No. 70-40.

Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972 Decided January 22, 1973

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C. J., post, p. 207, and DOUGLAS, J., post, p. 209, filed concurring opinions.

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

.... In Roe v. Wade, ante, p. 113, we today have struck down, as constitutionally defective, the Texas criminal abortion statutes that are representative of provisions long in effect [410 U.S. 179, 182]  in a majority of our States. The Georgia legislation, however, is different and merits separate consideration.

(Section 3) Inasmuch as Doe and her class are recognized, the question whether the other appellants - physicians, nurses, clergymen, social workers, and corporations - present a justiciable controversy and have standing is perhaps a matter of no great consequence. We conclude, however, that the physician-appellants, who are Georgia-licensed doctors consulted by pregnant women, also present a justiciable controversy and do have standing despite the fact that the record does not disclose that any one of them has been prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution, for violation of the State's abortion statutes. The physician is the one against whom these criminal statutes directly operate in the event he procures an abortion that does not meet the statutory exceptions and conditions. The physician-appellants, therefore, assert a sufficiently direct threat of personal detriment. They should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief. Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F.2d 833, 839-840 (CA6 1971); Poe v. Menghini, 339 F. Supp. 986, 990-991 (Kan. 1972).

Section 4 (1) ...This is not to say that Georgia may not or should not, from and after the end of the first trimester, adopt [410 U.S. 179, 195]  standards for licensing all facilities where abortions may be performed so long as those standards are legitimately related to the objective the State seeks to accomplish.

because it fails to exclude the first trimester of pregnancy, see Roe v. Wade, ante, at 163, is also invalid. In so holding we naturally express no opinion on the medical judgment involved in any particular case, that is, whether the patient's situation is such that an abortion should be performed in a hospital, rather than in some other facility.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring *

I am somewhat troubled that the Court has taken notice of various scientific and medical data in reaching its conclusion; however, I do not believe that the Court has exceeded the scope of judicial notice accepted in other contexts.  Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.

[ Footnote * ] [This opinion applies also to No. 70-18, Roe v. Wade, ante, p. 113.] [410 U.S. 179, 209]

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring * While I join the opinion of the Court, 1 I add a few words.

Section 1 These rights, though fundamental, are likewise subject to regulation on a showing of "compelling state interest." We stated in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 164, that walking, strolling, and wandering "are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them." As stated in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29 :

Section 2

While childbirth endangers the lives of some women, voluntary abortion at any time and place regardless of medical standards would impinge on a rightful concern of society. The woman's health is part of that concern; as is the life of the fetus after quickening. These concerns justify the State in treating the procedure as a medical one. [quickening is generally held to occur after the first trimester Marcie]

The "liberty" of the mother, though rooted as it is in the Constitution, may be qualified by the State for the reasons we have stated. But where fundamental personal rights and liberties are involved, the corrective legislation must be "narrowly drawn to prevent the supposed evil,"

There is no doubt that the State may require abortions to be performed by qualified medical personnel. The legitimate objective of preserving the mother's health clearly supports such laws. Their impact upon the woman's privacy is minimal. But the Georgia statute outlaws virtually all such operations - even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. In light of modern medical evidence suggesting that an early abortion is safer healthwise than childbirth itself, 5 it cannot be seriously [410 U.S. 179, 217]  urged that so comprehensive a ban is aimed at protecting the woman's health.[ie laws can be written regarding the mother's health if they are reasonable] Rather, this expansive proscription of all abortions along the temporal spectrum can rest only on a public goal of preserving both embryonic and fetal life.

I am not prepared to hold that a State may equate, as Georgia has done, all phases of maturation preceding birth.

The protection of the fetus when it has acquired life is a legitimate concern of the State. --Marcie 23:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Reasons for abortions"
The data provided here (25.5% to postpone childbearing, 21.3% can't afford it, etc.) comes from an article titled "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries." Does this mean that these numbers represent the percentage of women in all 27 countries? If so, those statistics clearly don't belong in this article. Does anybody know if these statistics are specific to the United States, or if they are the aggregate figues for all 27 countries? Parallel or Together? 04:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I went and checked it out myself. The figures are for the US so it's all good. I will include a link to the site for future reference. Parallel or Together? 04:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Where is the rest of the data from the Guttmacher institute study? Did they only look at whether rape was the cause. I was unable to find the full results of this study and thus unable to find a citation. As such I suggest it be removed unless it can be cited and reported more completely. For example, without knowing what other categories they used, the data for rape and incest is less meaningful because they may have included another parameter which was partially overlapping. I would certainly support increasingly the diversity of studies that we report here, but lets get the full data. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

spontaneous vs. induced abortion
Someone has deleted my explanation that in this article the word "abortion" is not used in the medical sense, but only in the sense of "induced abortion". I wonder what the objection is to making this clear? Rick Norwood 16:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded to this, I'm putting the clarifiction back. If you want to remove it, please explain why. Rick Norwood 12:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Pro Life...right...
How can he Republicans be Pro Life if they toss our soldier's lives down the drain?

Assume the lotus position and repeat after me: "Npov Npov Npov."


 * Not all pro lifers are Republican, and the GOP is not monolithic on most issues anyway. With that in mind, assume the lotus position and repeat after me:


 * "Fallacy of the undistributed middle, fallacy of the undistributed middle..." --Ur Wurst Enema 20:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not doing that! It's a complete difference! We don't kill those people! Insurgents do! Beside, i'm pro-choice!The Republican 21:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Opposition arguments
The following passage that I added to the "opposition" section of this article was removed as being "redundant":


 * Organizations and individuals opposing abortion typically present one of two general arguments against the general availability of abortion. Some argue that because of the complexity and difficulty involved in determining exactly when life begins, the law should err on the side of protecting the fetus over the mother's privacy rights, or, similarly, that the law should err on the side of protecting the potential life over the mother's privacy rights. Other organizations and individuals opposing abortion argue that the fetus is a distinct living entity, thus it is a person and is entitled to protection under the law.

Before I edited this section, the section began with the last sentence of this passage. Unless the argument that I have added is contained elsewhere in the article (and if it is, it really should be in this section), I think it needs to be in this section. These are the two most general arguments against abortion, but the "fetus is a person" argument is really a faith-based argument, as it requires a belief that the fetus is a living being at the point of conception. The added argument is a secular argument, as it does not require that the arguer believe that the fetus is a living being from conception. Rather, the argument relies on the scientific difficulty of determining exactly when life begins, and cautions that if the law is to err, it should err on the side of protecting the fetus since we cannnot accurately determine whether it is "alive" or not and cannot risk killing a being that might be alive. Thus, it errs on the side of protecting something that might be alive (but is not certainly so) over the mother's right to privacy. Perhaps the argument is inartfully worded and should be rewritten, but it really needs to be in the article as it relies on an entirely different premise from the second. - Jersyko   talk  14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The strong version of the argument is that a fetus is morally and legally equivalent to a newborn. The weak version, which you added, is that the law ought to err on the side of treating the fetus as if it were morally and legally equivalent to a newborn.  This is the same argument, only in different levels of dilution. Alienus 05:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I disagree, labelling one or the other as "strong" and "weak" is POV. The "weak version", as you call it, is a secular argument, as I've pointed out, as it does not require one to simply take it upon faith or belief that a fetus is alive from conception.  This distinguishes the arguments enough so that both warrant inclusion in this article. -  Jersyko   talk  13:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, both the strong and weak versions are (at least ostensibly) secular arguments. However, they differ only in whether they state the personhood of a fetus as a fact or merely as a likelihood we should lean towards.  Both omit any specific basis for thinking that a fetus should be given the rights of a person in the first place, which is why I put in "ostensibly".  In practice, the basis may well be secular, but it is quite often not, especially for the strong version.  In any case, there is redundancy here that must be resolved, because the article as it stands is repetative. Do you want me to take a stab at it first? Alienus 19:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I still disagree that the article is redundant, but please feel free to edit away. I agree, though, that both arguments are flawed for failing to demonstrate the personhood of a fetus.  In any event, I will not revert any of your changes unless consensus is reached in re this issue. -  Jersyko   talk  18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I took a stab at it. Don't revert my changes, but feel free to either make suggestions here or change what you think is bad. Alienus 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the changes. The flow is much better now.  I won't remove the contraception bit you added (partly because I agree with the sentiment expressed), but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else removed it as POV.  Perhaps the language you use could be neutralized somewhat? -  Jersyko   talk  21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Other impediments to access
Looks like it should include the statistics if it's going to reference them, and more explicitly state opinions as such. -- Varuka 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Maternal health"?
As per my edit this morning, I tried to remove subtle POV from the sentence "abortion mortality fell from nearly 1,500 to a little over 100" - obviously from a pro-choice POV, this might seem NPOV, but obviously, for those who are pro-life, it is distinctly POV: the rate of abortion mortality may have falled from nearly 1500 to a little over 100 for the mother, but remained 100% for the child.

However, Alienus reverted this edit, pointing out - quite accurately and fairly - that "there are no maternal deaths from abortion because pregnant women who abort do not become mothers" (see edit summary). While this is accurate, it does have the problem that - if taken seriously, as one must presume Alienus intends - of rendering other uses of an almost identical phrase ("maternal death", "maternal mortality") within the same paragraph nonsensical, yet Alienus did not edit those. I now have - with the net effect, in my view, that the article is now more literally correct, per Alienus, but none-the-less, is less elegantly phrased. This strikes me as being a ridiculously over-scrupulous parsing of the text; surely, one can say "Some supporters of legal abortion argue that legalization has resulted in a dramatic fall in 'maternal death from abortion," so surely one can also say " From 1940 through 1970, maternal death from abortion fell"

The more controversial the topic, the greater the need for NPOV. But how far can this be taken? To the point of making the article less readable to quibble over a painfully minor distinction (and to be inconsistent about it, at that)? It seems to me that both my most recent edit and Alienus' edit should be reverted to my version from this morning. Simon Dodd 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Addenda: if there is no objection to comments within 24 hours of my post yesterday evening, I will go ahead and make the reversion described therein. Simon Dodd 19:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of "mother" or "maternal" to refer to a pregnant woman who has an abortion is misleading and usually POV. Likewise, so is calling an embryo or fetus a "baby" or "infant". If you do a simple search, you'll nonetheless find these words in the article, because sometimes they're used accurately (such as referring to a woman who has had a child as a mother) and sometimes they're used inaccurately but in a direct quotes.

The term maternal death is ambiguous, as the article first specifies that it refers to death involving childbirth (which clearly excludes abortion), then quotes a source that mentions abortion among maternal deaths. This source, which is quote NPOV, defines the term somewhat differently, as "deaths from pregnancy-related complications occurring throughout pregnancy, labour, childbirth and in the postpartum period". It also lists unsafe abortions as the cause of 12% of such deaths, adding that one 1% of that 12% occurs in rich countries. In short, anything that excessively emphasizes the possibility of maternal death from competent abortions is POV. I think the best way to avoid this is to just to use a different, less unclear and uncontroversial, term. In fact, I've just done so.

Taking care to use terms that do not show bias doesn't mean making the article any harder to read, and it's absolutely essential if we want this to become featured. Therefore, it would be very inappropriate to revert my changes on this matter. Alienus 20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus - In my view, the goal is to be accurate, first, and readable, second. "Working on an article that gains featured status" doesn't make my list of goals of contributing to Wikipedia. I want to stress that the section of the article in debate is not now as it was when I found it; then, it was both inconsistent and POV. It is now neither, but in the process it has become inelegantly phrased, which I think is regrettable; I think that referring to "maternal death" during abortion is perfectly reasonable use of language, but it is not the problem I initially made the edit to correct. My purpose was to correct what I saw as subtle POV, and while I think my way of saying it is better than the version you have forced, at the very least, while I don't like the new style, I am none-the-less content with the content. Therefore, while I think that your edit, in fact, is detrimental to the article in a stylistic manner, it does at least have the virtues of being scrupulously factually accurate. I am far more interested in substance than style, and thus leave it to others to fight the stylistic fight, as long as it remains factually accurate. :) Simon Dodd 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for content-centered changes to negatively effect the quality of the language. When this occurs, we have two choices: revert the change and accept inferior content or keep the content and improve the language. I strongly endorse the latter. So if you can find a way to make the text flow better while avoiding the dreaded m-word, go for it. Alienus 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NOW v. Scheidler
This article should contain at least a paragraph of this historic case. Good 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Party Positions
Democrats For Life are no longer marginalized in the party. They aanounced their plan to reduce the abortion rate by 95% in 10 years at the DNC HQ at the invitation of Hoawrd Dean. I could provide any number of quotes here to support this, but this is one of the first I came across: ""I have long believed that we ought to make a home for pro-life Democrats," he urged respect for antiabortion Democrats whose policy positions, such as support for children's programs, are "often lacking on the Republican side." www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1325026/posts

POV?
The following sentence has been inserted in the article: "There is also a large disconnect between convention delegates who pass the party platform and rank and file Democrats." While some 2004 polls seems to support this conclusion to some degree, more recent polls seem to confuse the issue as they reach quite different conclusions. Also, speaking of Democratic leaders, what about Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who is pro-life by most accounts? I think the sentence is mere POV and should be removed per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, but I would like to hear other editors' comments on the matter. For context, the relevant paragraph is the second one in this section. - Jersyko &middot;talk 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Updates?
In Later Judicial Decisions, the following sentence "Several items of legislation impacting on abortion, including the Child Custody Protection Bill, are awaiting Congressional debate (February 2003)" really needs an update. Its been 3 1/2 years, something tells me that bill has been decided on by now...Natalie 01:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Murder
There is only one single mention of murder even thought it is the argument of the opposing half of the debate. This whole article seems whack out of NPOV...--71.192.88.79 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

abortion rates drastically declining during Clinton
its nice to see right away what the typical rates of abortion have been in the US, its just inconvenient for some that actually, against popular imagination, the rates plunged to far fewer women having abortions during Clinton, during Reagan-Bush it was much higher and remained constant, the american people have been deceived and lied to by campaigns against the Clintons using the abortion issue, its actually the Clintons that had drastic reductions in abortions...no one else has even come close to matching those reductions in abortions!!! I'm not saying I'm pro-Clinton or anti-republican or something, I'm just stating facts, and I was incidently shocked by the reality, and now feel as if i have been deceived by american republicans, I live in switzerland actually, and I tend to think americans should do more like the French and make it a 10 week limit perhaps, its too easy in america to get an abortion i think, the French for instance have higher standards, yet i am happy the Clintons helped greatly reduce the abortion rate in america!!!...83.79.137.123 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The source that was cited to support the conclusion that abortions decreased under Clinton says nothing about the presidency or political parties. Thus, it's original research to discuss the decline in abortions in the context of political parties or the identity of the president, implying a connection is so doing.  The article already discusses abortion rates over time.  In any event, the information is certainly too specific for the article's introduction. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statement, which you put that "there was less abortions under Clinton than Reagan and Bush" and use one fact which you state regarding the amount abortions under one president than the other, and the overlooking or justifying your stat as to the reason why that may be the case is a false argument fallacy under the concept of Half-truth Correlation does not imply causation or Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It could be said that of this statistic fiery arrow may be due to Democratic president manipulating the data or hiding the full truth of what may be the cause of that statistic.  Your premise is without factual basis or fully cited information to justify your statement.207.67.148.136 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Update Polls
The same pollsters have just released several new polls. I have taken the liberty to update one. Also, at surveyUSA.com, you can get state-by-state adult composition of the debate. The Last time it was taken the numbers appeared: (as of 11/12/06): (these polls are not too in depth, but it allows people to look at the abortion debate state-by-state. This would be what would count in case Roe v. Wade was overturned (but not in a way where the justices will amend constitutional law to give equal protection and due process to unborn children/fetuses) and we wanted to predict abortion law for each jurisdiction.* These polls are based on rolling averages and are found in the cross tabs. There is an abortion poll from 2005, however with more detail and more focus on the abortion debate. http://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html Alabama- Prolife: 58% Prochoice: 36% Alaska-  Prolife: 34%  Prochoice: 61% Arizona- Prolife: 38%  Prochoice: 57% Arkansas-Prolife: 54%  Prochoice: 41% California-  32%, 63% Colorado-    40%, 56% Connecticut- 32%, 65% Deleware-    34%, 60% Florida-     39%, 57% Georgia-    43%, 48% Hawaii-     36%, 59% Idaho-      56%, 39% Illinois-   37%, 57% Indiana-    47%, 47% Iowa-       45%, 51% Kansas-     46%, 48% Kentucky-   55%, 40% Louisiana-  61%, 34% Maine-      31%, 65% Maryland-   33%, 63% Massachusetts26%, 68% Michigan-   36%, 58% Minnesota-  40%, 56% Mississippi- 59%, 34% Missouri-   49%, 46% Montana- NOT AVAILABLE Nebraska-   45%, 48% Nevada-     33%, 62% NewHampshire 27%, 69% New Jersey- 31%, 65% New Mexico- 42%, 50% New York-   28%, 65% NorthCarolina50%, 44% North Dakota NOT AVAILABLE Ohio-       47% 49% Oklahoma-   48% 47% Oregon-     36% 57% Pennsylvania 41% 52% Rhode Island 33% 61% SouthCarolina50% 43% South Dakota 45% 52% Tennessee   52% 40% Texas       42% 50% Utah        61% 34% Vermont     25% 71% Virginia    46% 47% Washington  34% 63% WestVirginia 52% 41% Wisconsin   40% 55% Wyoming     44% 51% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.144.113.218 (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

LEAD
I think th lead is rather poor and would suggest an almost complete re-write. We do not need to repeat the definition debate. If anything, we could have a foot note that when we use the word "abortion" in this article, we are referring to an induced abortion procedure anytime in a pregnancy. We should summarize the state of Abortion in the US in the lead. We should summarize the actual article, not rehash definition debate stuff that is already covered in the main abortion article. I'll see if I can't come up with a proposal.-Andrew c 14:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's been definitional material in the lede since 2005. I don't see it as a big problem.  The recent material about the U.S. legal definition is even more useful, because it is U.S.-specific.  Maybe the lede could be improved, but it all depends on what you want to change it to.  You haven't suggested that anything currently in the lede is inaccurate, so I'm not sure why you refer to it as a "debate."Ferrylodge 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was that the lead is not following WP:LEAD. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Reading the lead, you'd think this article is about the different definitions of the word abortion. I see no reason for us to focus on that, when the topic of the article is Abortion in the US. The legal definition is marginally notable, but still not the main topic of this article. The "debate" was referring to was not a content dispute among editors, but the variations in definitions described in the lead.-Andrew c 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea that a lede should "stand alone" suggests to me that it should not rely on definitions in some other article. The main abortion article has definitional material in its lede, presumably without running afoul of guidelines: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced by chemical, surgical or other means. Commonly, 'abortion' refers to an induced procedure at any point during human pregnancy; medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation, which is considered nonviable."  This is all definitional.  It tells the reader what the article is about.  You haven't mentioned any additional material that you think should be in the lede.Ferrylodge 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Before I move on to proposals, are we in agreement that the current lead is not up to wikipedia standards and needs to be changed?-Andrew c 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in the current lede that needs to be removed. More info could perhaps be added in order to "summarize the most important points," but it may be difficult to agree about what the most important points are.Ferrylodge 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel we do not need to rehash the definitions found in the lead of abortion. The term abortion is wikilinked. It may be help to specify the legal definition used in caselaw in the US, but not go into as much detail concerning definitions (look at some featured articles. how many of them spend as much space as we do to definitions? does the Eagle Scout article define scouting in the lead? Does Ebionites define Judaism or Christianity in the lead?). Also, the info you added about abortion of fetuses being more controversial than embryoes is your personal opinion. Late-term abortions are more controversial. Even 2nd tri- are more controversial, but the fetus/embryo distinction is unsourced and not representative of the general US population. Yes, I think the definition part is too much, but my main point is that the lead is not up to standards. We need to summarize the topic. This does mean expanding the section, but also having a strong topic sentence, and then a strong first paragraph the details the highlights of this article (the defintions are NOT the highlights of this article). The bulk of the first paragraph of "Current legal situation" seems very well suited for somewhere in the lead. We could also have a sentence or two about public opinion. Maybe a bit about pre-Roe, and a little bit about political parties and the pro-choice/pro-life movements. -Andrew c 18:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It most certainly is not merely a personal opinion of mine that abortion of fetuses is more controversial than abortion of embryos. I've just inserted a footnote about that.


 * Regarding scouting and Judaism and Christianity, everyone knows what that means. In contrast, few readers would be aware that the third-party killing of a fetus can fall within the definition of an "abortion."


 * I don't disagree that additional material could be usefully added to the lede. However, since the lede should "stand alone", I don't think repeating or summarizing the definition of "abortion" is inappropriate, given that the word has meanings that are not commonly understood..Ferrylodge 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.. the state of California does not consider abortion of a fetus to be homicide, so your citation is off topic, original research.-Andrew c 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the definition in the lede of this article, and the definition in the lede of the main abortion article, feticide is a form of abortion. Look at the template at the right-hand-side of this article, and you will find feticide listed.  The fact is that killing of fetuses is generally more controversial in the United States than killing of embryos, and that is amply shown not only by Claifornia case law, but also by the poll results in this article, which show that abortion in the second and third trimesters (i.e. fetal abortions) are vastly more controversial than abortions in the first trimester (the vast majority of which are embryonic abortions).Ferrylodge 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the text to be less specific and cover more cases. I've also removed the spurious reference. The sentence specifically states "induced abortion" and the California law specifically says induced abortions are except from the law. You are drawing conclusions about the poll (i.e. original research) in that we don't know if the reason people support 1st trimester abortions is because they are first trimester or because they are embryonic. Because the questions don't mention this, there is no way for us to determine if the motivations of those being polled is based on the embryo/fetus distinction or not. I wouldn't mind saying 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are more controversial than 1st trimester abortions. -Andrew c 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew c, I have no objection to the edit you made. However, I would caution you against misrepresenting statutes in order to conform with what you wish the statutes said.  The California law does not say that "induced abortions are except (sic) from the law."  In reality, the California fetal murder statute says that it does not apply to any act that "complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 25950) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (Now § 187, subd. (b)(1)."


 * But as I said, I have no problem with the edit you made. If I were nitpicky, I might complain that it implies abortions in the second month are more controversial than abortions in the first month, and that such an assertion is original research on your part.  However, I am not nitpicky.Ferrylodge 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c edited the lead to say: "Generally speaking, in the United States induced abortions become more controversial the later they are performed into the pregnancy. " Subsequently, Severa reverted this edit.  I think Andrew c's edit was okay. The lead ought to say something about public opinion, and the sentence Andrew c wrote accomplishes that well.Ferrylodge 03:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've included the text under the Public Opinion section. It isn't pretty, but the info is material. Perhaps someone else can edit or relocate it.LCP 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

South Dakota

 * On March 6 2006 the state of South Dakota banned all abortions except those done to save the life of the mother, "in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion," according to the Associated Press. Opponents of the law gathered enough signatures for a referendum on the November 7 2006 ballot in which the law was rejected 56-44%.

The above was removed from the article. I think it is clearly notable that a state legislature passed a law banning abortion. Is there an argument why we shouldn't mention this in the article, or can we work on a wording and place to fit this back into he article? -Andrew c 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This stuff was in a section on PBA, and I removed it. Even if put into an appropriate section, it still gives undue weight to a law that ultimately failed.  There is other proposed legislation that has failed too (e.g. in Mississippi).  In contrast, many states continue to enact "trigger laws" that would ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned.  Those triggers laws have not failed, and are presently on the books.  One was signed in Louisiana a few months ago.Ferrylodge 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From a google test, I have to disagree with your undue weight concerns. Perhaps we could also mention trigger laws elsewhere in the article, but at least to the media, the South Dakota law was the most notable out of any of them. Google "abortion ban" and hits #1,8,18,19 deal with SD, and the rest with the PBA Ban. Do a google search where you exclude the phrase "partial-birth" and hits #1,2,3,8,9,10,11,13,14,17,20 all deal with SD. Only hit 19 deals with a trigger law (the remaining hits deal with the PBA Ban without saying "partial-birth" or the Nicaragua abortion ban). I believe we could have more in depth coverage of bans and trigger laws across the US, but I also believe that the SD ban has established notability, and having 2 sourced sentences about the ban and subsequent voter rejection isn't giving it too much space.-Andrew c 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've inserted this paragraph, which I stole from the Roe v. Wade article: "On March 6, 2006, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed into law a pro-life statute which made performing abortions a felony, and that law was subsequently repealed in a November 7, 2006 referendum. On February 27 2006, Mississippi’s  House Public Health Committee voted to approve a ban on abortion, and that bill died after the House and Senate failed to agree on compromise legislation.  Several states have enacted so-called 'trigger laws' which 'would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned."  Hopefully, that will work.Ferrylodge 18:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thanks for finding that paragraph.-Andrew c 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Woman vs. Person
While I ordinarily prefer gender-neutral terminology, I think it's better to refer to the people actively seeking abortions as "women." If we refer to doctors and vendors selling abortifacients to "people," one might think that they meant men as well as women (which may have been the case, but the words still don't mean the same thing in that context). I believe someone else also pointed out that it might cause confusion regarding fetal personhood.Darkfrog24 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur, women are the gender who get pregnant, changing to "persons" or "people" is silly. One puppy's opnion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Sentence
It seems to me that the following line is irrelevant in an article on abortion and should be deleted - or am I missing something?

"They also believed that a woman should be allowed to refuse sex with her husband. An American woman had no legal recourse at that time against rape by her husband, except possibly divorce,[4] an option that (especially before the American Civil War) was usually available only for well-connected women of means who had sufficient resources not just to end the marriage but to also survive without a husband." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.192.176 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AGI, CDC and recent addition
I'm confused why this article is using CDC statistics rather than AGI statistics for yearly number of abortions in the U.S. CDC does not include abortion figures from every state (including California), so its total is always dramatically lower than reality. AGI may be a "pro-choice source", but most anti-abortion people that I have heard use AGI figures because they are the most extensive. So if both sides use AGI data, there shouldn't be a POV/NPOV concern about using AGI. If the article keeps using CDC statistics rather than AGI, then there should at least be a note about how CDC figures are incomplete.(talk) 08:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved this from the article:
 * The figures above are from the CDC. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is generally considered more reliable and produces an abortion count which is on average 15% higher. The AGI acknowledges a "pro-choice" bias and estimates that its abortion count may be 3% short of the actual total. (AGI, The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion, Issues in Brief, 01/1997.) Statistics extrapolated from AGI's yearly count show that 47,282,923 abortions had been performed from 1973 to 2005. According to the Supreme Court, relying on figures from the CDC in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 87% of abortions in 2005 were first trimester abortions. Therefore, 13% of abortions were second and third trimester, or "late term." If we assume that figure is an approximate yearly average then there have been, at a minimum, six million late term abortions since Roe v. Wade.

What is the purpose of these latest additions? What are they getting at? The last 4 or 5 sentences are completely unsourced, and partially inaccurate/original research. The article cited The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion doesn't say anything about "bias" or "pro-choice". There are other problems as well. Anyway, can we discuss what the article is lacking, how we should remedy that, and then work together to reach a consensus version we can all live with?-Andrew c [talk] 02:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to note that I agree with the removal of the material for the reasons stated above. · jersyko   talk  00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon, please come here and discuss your proposal, and stop edit warring. You can't force controversial new content against consensus. Work with us, not against us, please.


 * Here are some more reasons that the new text is problematic. Without citing math or a reliable source, it claims that one can extrapolate from the AGI data the number of total abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade. However, this as it stands is original research, and we simply cannot publish this number for the first time. Where are the sources? Similarly, it is extremely erroneous to use the figure of 2nd and 3rd-tri abortions from 2005, and assume that it was the same for the last 30 years. Using that sort of math is worse than a guesstimate, and is misleading the reader. Finally, the definition of a 2nd tri-abortion as being "late-term" isn't universal. See our article for more details. -Andrew c [talk] 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[moved from the "Biased statments" section above]The article's statements about the number of abortions is slyly deceptive. The number of late term abortions is presented only as a percentage of the overall number of abortions since Roe v. Wade. Nowhere are these numbers made explicit. Only the number of abortions in the U.S. in 2003 is made explicit. That number, 854,122, is about half the peak number of abortions in any of the years since Roe, hardly a representative number. The percentage of late term abortions (2nd and 3rd trimester) in the innocuous looking pie chart adds up to 11.3%, a number significantly exceeded by the Alan Guttmacher Institute's calculations, which are generally considered more reliable than those of the Center for Disease Control cited in the pie chart. If we enumerate the total number of abortions since Roe and factor in the more reliable percentage, we find that the number of late term abortions since Roe exceeds 6,000,000, a figure the writers of "Abortion in the United States" apparently wish to conceal. I propose the following edit to be added immediately under figure 1 in "Number of Abortion in United States":

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I want to thank you for coming to the talk page. Now, perhaps you could read some of the comments already made above and reply to some of our concerns. Part of the issue is that your extrapolating figures results in original research that hasn't been published outside wikipedia, and therefore is inappropriate for use here. You also use an uncommon definition of "late-term" and haven't justified why the AGI is a "self-acknowledged "pro choice" research organization" or why that information is even important here.-Andrew c [talk] 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from AGI itself: "...the Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable all women and families to avoid unplanned pregnancies and births and exercise the right to choose abortion safely and with dignity." http://www.guttmacher.org/about/2007/06/25/AnnualReport2006.pdf. (Wikipedia cites AGI 74 times in various articles and nowhere mentions AGI's bias. In the same way, the article under discussion here nowhere mentions that the CDC fails to include all the states in its tally of abortions)

You cite AGI and CDC in this article. Someone needed to point out AGI's bias and CDC's incomplete count.

Your article also states, "According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 854,122 legal induced abortions in the US in 2003." This is the lead statement in the section of the article dealing with the number of abortions. It is not only prominent; it is entirely unqualified, which suggests that it is typical of the yearly abortion rate in the U.S. It most certainly is not. Did the critic of my "worse than a guesstimate" object to that statement in the article? I will agree that I ought to have included the qualification, "If we assume that the figure cited by the Court is typical...."

Furthermore, pointing out CDC's stunted estimates will help the objectivity of the article.

Basic arithmetic is not "original research."

Late-term abortion is commonly defined as 2nd and 3rd term abortion. But I make it clear in my suggested edit that by late term abortion I mean 2nd and 3rd term abortion. So there is nothing misleading here.

Had I time, I would address all the issues raised. I will make only one more point. Planned Parenthood and its sister pro-choice organizations habitually state that only a "very small percentage" of abortions are late term abortions. This makes the number sound small. The article's pie chart adopts this perspective. However, the statement that over 6,000,000 late term abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade doesn't sound small and will give the reader a choice of perspectives. I hope you folks have a committment to choice as well as truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) It has been a couple of days since I wrote this response to the critics of my proposed edit. This time no one has made any reply. I assume that's because they are satisfied. I will wait a couple of days more and if there are still no objections, I will reintroduce my edit (with the changes mentioned above) into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk • contribs)


 * Please provide reliable sources that can be used to verify your claims through citations if you want to include such information in the article. I have no opinion as to whether you are correct or not regarding the number of abortions in the United States, or the inaccuracy of the CDC, or the accuracy/bias (I'm not really sure what you're getting at) of the AGI.  However, I will insist on extremely reliable sources for each of your claims.  As it stands, you are continuing to engage in unreferenced original research, such as your math regarding the number of late term abortions.  A way to remedy this problem, for example, is to provide a reliable source that presents the math in the way you have suggested.  Similarly, I'm perplexed regarding support for the claim that the AGI data is more reliable than the CDC.  Thanks. ·  jersyko   talk  15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But I just gave you hypertext leading to AGI's own self-description in its own publication: "...the Institute works to protect, expand and equalize access to information, services and rights that will enable all women and families to avoid unplanned pregnancies and births and exercise the right to choose abortion safely and with dignity." http://www.guttmacher.org/about/2007/06/25/AnnualReport2006.pdf. If you can reject that you can reject anything. Also a cite was given for the statement that AGI was more reliable than CDC (The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion) What the hell is going on? I'm beginning to think that you guys just don't want that 6,000,000 figure known. Objectivity isn't making neutral statements; it's making true statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm simply not understanding. Please correct any of this if you believe I am wrong.  You're saying that the AGI is a pro-choice organization, thus it is not a particularly reliable source given its agenda.  However, you also are using an AGI source (the "Limitations" source) to demonstrate that the CDC figures (which are used in our article) are wrong.  I'm not sure how to square these two positions, but moving on.  Finally, you haven't provided any reliable source, other than your arithmetic, to demonstrate that the number of late term abortions is what you say it is.  If you provide one, we can move on.  Am I misunderstanding anything here? ·  jersyko   talk  22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that AGI's pro-choice position would, if anything, cause it to underestimate the number of abortions in the U.S. since Roe. Therefore, we can treat its 47,000,000 figure as a minimum and its claim that CDC under-reports abortions as accurate. The actual total of abortions since Roe has probably passed 50,000,000 by now. My use of the 47,000,000 figure is an estimate of the number that can be backed up by citation. Also, do you really doubt the statement from AGI that it supports abortion rights? Don't readers of Wikipedia, which cites AGI so often, have a right to know its position? Let's not be working to keep the readers of Wikipedia ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have one more change to make. then, i think, Im through. Determining the number of abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade is extremely difficult.Most of the figures above and below are from the CDC. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is generally considered more reliable and produces an abortion count which is on average 15% higher. If we add up the Alan Guttmacher Institute's (AGI's) yearly abortion tallies, we find that 46,995,300 abortions were performed from 1973 through 2003. The AGI is a self-acknowledged "pro choice" research organization, so it is not likely to have overestimated the number of abortions. . AGI estimates a 3% under-count for its own figures. In 2002 the Center for Disease Control estimated that just under 87% of abortions were first term abortions, a fact relied upon by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart'' in 2007. Therefore, 13% were second and third term abortions, a percentage which multiplied by 46,995,300 yields 6,108,389 as the number of 2nd and 3rd term abortions performed in the U.S. between 1973 and 2004.
 * Please consider WP:OR carefully. The following are examples of original research in the proposed addition: "If we add up the Alan Guttmacher Institute's (AGI's) yearly abortion tallies" . . . "it is not likely to have overestimated the number of abortions" . . . and the entire final sentence.  Have you looked for a source that says everything you have noted here?  For example, is there a newspaper article out there that discusses inaccuracies in abortion figures?  That would be immeasurably helpful to you in including the information you want to include.  In fact, if you can find such a reliable source, I will happily endorse its inclusion.  As it is, though, there's far too much original research involved for me to do so. ·  jersyko   talk  21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can do what you ask if you will allow me to use sources that are pro-life. You now allow the pro-choice AGI as a reference even though it admits that it's figures are inaccurate by about three percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to use any source you like, including a self-described "pro-life" organization, provided that it meets the standards found here. · jersyko   talk  14:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to make a side note. If you are going to be using talk pages, then you need to learn how to "sign" your comments. Look at the top of the talk page edit window (the one in which you are going to type your reply), and you will see a box that says Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ). This 'code' automatically creates a name and timestamp at the end of your posts. This makes it so everyone can keep track of who is saying what. So just add the tildes at the end of your next post. Doing so will prevent the SineBot from coming and adding the message that your post was unsigned. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you removed my edits from the article on anencephaly in favor of such statements as "Infants born with anencephaly are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain," which cites no source at all. Nobody on earth knows whether an anencephalic baby can feel pain or anything else for that matter. You really do have a double standard here and it really seems to favor the pro-choice position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, did you even read my last comment? Do you not understand what I mean when I say "sign" your comments? I'd be more than glad to try to help, but I'm not sure how else I could explain it besides to ask you to please type four tildes at the end of your posts. Next, I do not recall removing any edits having to do with anencephaly. I just checked through your edit history and couldn't find the edit in question. Could you post diffs to this alleged revert? (you can see what a diff is by clicking on the page history tab, and then looking at the links that say "diff". it shows the changes between revisions). Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon, please try to assume good faith. Neither one of us reverted your edits at that article, but rather another anonymous editor appears to have done so.  I'm not following your edits to other articles, and I feel certain Andrew c isn't either.  So, again, please assume good faith and refrain from continuing to accuse editors of things they did not and are not doing. ·  jersyko   talk  19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Could one of you answer this finally?

Before I put in any more effort, I'd like to hear your verdict on the statement and citation below. Keep in mind that the addition here was done by NRL not me;I'm just describing the results of their "original research;" (I'm assuming sources are allowed to do "original research.") Would you allow the following paragraph to be put in Abortion in the United States?

Adding the abortion figures released by AGI from 1973 to 2004 and estimating the number of abortion from 2004 to 2006, National Right to Life(NRL) concludes that there have been 48,585,993 abortions in the United States between 1973 and 2007. (footnote: NRL, "The Consequences of Roe v. Wade 48,585,993 Total Abortions since 1973," Jan.,2007. http://www.nlc.org/factsheets/FS03_AbortionsintheUS.pdf)

The Physicians for Life, which has an entry in Wikipedia, reviews technical statements for the NRL. "please type four tildes at the end of your post." I did. It doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 September 2007


 * OK, first, please try to copy and paste the following ~ and put at after your last sentence of your next post. Next, the sentence leaves you that they also calculated an extra 3% based on AGI's estimate of underreporting. Also, the range is 1973-2003 (not 2004) based on this (the link you provided is dead). Also, there are still reliable sourcing issues. Read through Reliable_sources. Multiple points jump out at me. Why isn't this number reported in more notable journals? Peer reviewed journals? Why isn't this number reported in popular media sources? There are even some concerns dealing with the "Extremist sources" section. I'd be more comfortable if we had a less partisan, more official or scholarly source for this number. -Andrew c [talk] 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You have read my edits as presented above. Therefore, you know that the claim that AGI is pro-choice cites directly to an AGI statement that says it is pro-choice. The declaration is often repeated in AGI literature. AGI is cited twice in the "Abortion in the United States" article and mentioned 74 times altogether in Wikipedia. You have no quarrel with this, unless I add the AGI yearly counts together to come up with a minimum total. But you do quarrel with an NRL cite. You are clearly biased. Trading proposed edits back and forth in this context is the same as what you call "edit warring." It's useless. You win the "war." You have effectively concealed from the readers of Wikipedia the fact that there have been over 6,000,000 second and third term abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade. I'm sure you know the company you're in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.223.46 (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just posted a warning about assuming good faith on the anon's talk page. Anon, all you have to do is provide a reliable source for your claims.  That's all we're asking.  Find a newspaper article, find a peer reviewed study if you want to include those numbers.  If no such sources exist, that might be telling.  In any event, I'm simply making a request for a reliable source, and I believe that Andrew c is doing exactly the same thing.  We care about abiding by Wikipedia guidelines, not concealing information. ·  jersyko   talk  16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)