Talk:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

POV tag
This article may favor a certain viewpoint and lacks neutrality. The reliance on a single source, identified only as "Miller," without additional sources, may contribute to bias. Furthermore, claims such as the increase in abortions during World War II lack proper citations and sourcing, with only a link to a Wikipedia article provided. Additional citations from diverse, reliable sources are needed to ensure the article's neutrality and accuracy.

The above text was added by when adding a pov tag to the article in. As the text is not appropriate for the article, but appears to be a good faith complaint about POV I've copied it here so that other editors can contribute. I have no opinions on the reasoning at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello @Sideswipe9th, I also noticed the reliance on the single source "Miller" and the lack of sourcing for the claim about WW2, which may not be suitable for this article on the case. Although I didn't contribute to those sections yet, I share your concern. I started on the common law section (explained below). I've added a neutrality dispute tag to the article and plan to review this section for potential edits. I'd appreciate your input on the accuracy and relevance of those claims to the article, as I share the concern that they aren't adequately sourced or adequately related. Thank you for the message. TragicPower (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing lots of sources in the present version of the article. Is this tag still needed?  If so, can someone specify the nonneutral point of view the article represents?  Warren Dew (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)h
 * The content sourced to Miller was moved to a more general background article. Same for the cite to the case United States v. Vuitch, which was the "link to a Wikipedia article". Citations to cases can link to the Wikipedia articles for those cases). In this case the citation to a primary source was opaque and unexplained and is no longer in the article. All the issued raised have been resolved and the tag can be removed. Ben Azura (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Problems in common law section
I agree that the Common Law section has several large flaws and also a strong bias. I think I could add to this about the common law, I wrote this text:

--- Abortion in the common law is a point of historical debate. The majority opinion in this case writes that abortion was never apart of the common law. "At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages." The dissenting opinion of Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan also agrees with this point of history writing. "The majority says (and with this much we agree) that the answer to this question is no: In 1868, there was no nationwide right to end a pregnancy, and no thought that the Fourteenth Amendment provided one." ---

I feel like this text tries to give a fair examination of common law as it is viewed both by the majority and the dissenting justices, who agree on this point. I added this with sources from both the majority and dissenting opinions from this case it's self, yet it was imminently deleted the next day and replaced with a claim that abortion wasn't ever illegal (which didn't even give a source) (and is of course not true) so I am open to input but I feel that this common law section is not correct according to both the majority opinion and dissenting opinion, which agrees on this historical point as quoted above on page 13 of their dissenting opinion (page 160 of the document) (as no source is even provided by the other edits that deleted my text) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TragicPower (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added this source for you from an encyclopedia to confirm that "It is undisputed..." that abortion was only illegal post-quickening. This statement does not make sense: "The majority opinion in this case writes that abortion was never apart of the common law." The majority opinion does not write that. It writes that abortion was a crime at common law under some circumstances. This is consistent with the sourced text that is currently in the article that abortion was illegal post-quickening. This is not a point that is in dispute in the case Dobbs that this article is about. Ben Azura (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I appreciate your attention to detail and your commitment to accuracy in the article.
 * I removed the single phrase and replaced it with "the majority says" to accurately reflect the language used in the quoted text from the opinion. My intention was to present the information in a clear and direct manner without introducing any potential ambiguity or interpretation, so I understand your point.
 * Regarding your suggestion to further explore the common law aspect, I'm interested in delving deeper into that topic. The two quotes from the majority and dissenting opinions indeed acknowledge that abortion could be considered a crime at any stages under common law (on page 3 of the opinion). However, they also suggest that there was no nationwide consensus on the issue and no thought that the Fourteenth Amendment provided such a right, as they say.
 * I believe it's important to capture this nuanced perspective in the article, and I'm open to discussing how best to articulate it. Perhaps we could consider adding additional context or explanation to clarify the historical debate surrounding abortion in common law.
 * I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this and working together to ensure the article accurately reflects the complexities of the issue.
 * Best regards, TragicPower (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is not on page 3 of the opinion. I am skeptical that what you are saying is anywhere in the opinion, because it is incorrect. Ben Azura (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Ben Azura,
 * Thank you for your message and for pointing out the difference in page numbering between the two documents.
 * I'm still navigating my way through this, and your observation has shed some light on the situation.
 * The discrepancy you noted arises from the fact that the two documents are different versions of the same opinion issued by the Supreme Court. The document you referenced, titled "Slip Opinion" and available at the link, contains the Court's opinion. In this document, the relevant passage is found on page 3.
 * On the other hand, the document linked as "PRELIMINARY PRINT," available at, is a more comprehensive preliminary version that includes additional materials beyond just the Court's opinion and syllabus. In this version, the same passage appears on page 4 due to the inclusion of extra materials.
 * While I'm still trying to understand the intricacies of these documents, your clarification has been incredibly helpful.
 * Thank you again for bringing attention to this matter, and I appreciate your diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the information.
 * Best Regards: TragicPower (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * it is also possible that I have the documents confused myself, let me know if so, thank you again. TragicPower (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean page 3 of the syllabus where there is a note that it was murder for the practitioner if the woman died as a result of an abortion at any stage? Of course dying from a dangerous procedure could be a serious consequence for the woman but it does not mean pre-quickening abortions were illegal. It might be helpful to remember that even though pre-quickening abortion was not a crime at common law it does not mean that it was a right. For it to be a right, there are other requirements. The discussion of common law history and traditions in the case is intended to show that those requirements are not met. The fact that it was illegal "in at least some stages of pregnancy" is sufficient for the legal analysis. Ben Azura (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As a general comment when I was doing the original creation of the BG of this case, my intent was to only show the transition of the views since before and after Roe to show why this challenge was happening. Then I know when the leaked opinion came out with reference to English law, I know we had to expand that BG a bit to cover a bit more. But we have whole articles on the history of abortion and abortion rights, including specific to the US. So I think that section has gotten out of hand. We still need a BG to understand how things swing over the last 50 years since Roe, but we can use seealso links to history articles to cover earlier events. M asem (t) 00:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The important historical content of general relevance to multiple articles will be more effectively organized by using links and keep this article more focused and manageable. Ben Azura (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Impact on abortion rates
Although the header mentions that impact on abortion rates is disputed and unclear, the "Effects on abortion rates" section later in the article claims abortion rates went down in states with trigger laws. Should these contradicting claims be reconciled? Veilure (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Overall the content about this is scattered in different sections and should be merged into the section "Effects on abortion rates" to avoid the article making contradictory claims. Some of it may need to be updated along with the lede. Ben Azura (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One is talking about legal abortions. The other is talking about total incidence. They're two different things. KlayCax (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)