Talk:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization/Archive 2

edit request -- 5-1-3 issue is NOT resolved!
Please change a sentence fragment in the 4th paragraph:
 * From: a more narrow 5–4 ruling overturned Roe and Casey.
 * To: a lesser majority of 5–3 voted to overturn Roe and Casey (Roberts did not join the dissent or the majority).

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No source presents as that is either given 6-3 (decision) or 5-4 (majority opinion to overturn. --M asem (t) 13:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? The actual opinion clearly states that only 3 justices voted against overturning Roe/Casey. It's simply NOT TRUE that the vote was 5-4; it was not. The vote to overturn Roe/Casey was 5-3, with 1 abstain; Roberts did not vote to overturn (or uphold) Roe/Casey. And if you bothered to read the actual ruling, you would know that. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn't an abstain position with scotus. Either you have joined the opinion or you didnt. Roberts didnt so he is one of 4 against the opinion. M asem (t) 14:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For you to claim "There isn't an abstain position with scotus" is both a WP:OR violation and so misstates the situation here, as to be factually wrong. In this instance. Roberts DID NOT join the majority in overturning Roe/Casey; and he explicitly said so himself in the decision. And he DID NOT join the dissent; the decision itself explicitly says that. You are transmuting a 'no position taken' state in to an affirmative opposition state. You are inventing facts out of whole cloth! Roberts DID NOT sign on to either side on the issue of overturning Roe/Casey -it's plain as day and it's in the original source! Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ther are situations where there can be multiple dissents where a justice only writes or joins one. No one treats those as separate dissenting votes in creating a tally, they all were not joining the majority. You're asking for a way to tally this case that isn't supported by any source. We 100% have to be clear Roberts joined only on the decision and did not want to overturn, but for a simple vote count, that position is part of the four that did not join the majority. M asem  (t) 15:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not one of those situations. Roberts did not write a dissent and did not join a dissent. What's in the ruling is very plain: "CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in the judgment". That's all Roberts did. Anything he said in that concurrence which points pro or con on Roe/Casey, is nothing more than dicta. He did not formally take a pro or con position on Roe/Casey being overturned at this time, so he words about Roe/Casey are not part of the precedent set in the opinion itself. What Roberts stated was a procedural objection, not a merits one "I would decide the question we granted review to answer—whether the previously recognized abortion right bars all abortion restrictions prior to viability, such that a ban on abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy is necessarily unlawful. The answer to that question is no, and there is no need to go further to decide this case. I therefore concur only in the judgment. What he stated is that were it up to him, he would not decide Roe?Casey in this case. He did not NOT say he would uphold them. He did not join the dissent. This is NOT a 5-4 decision. Regarding Roe/Casey, this a an usual 5-1-3 decision. If you Roberts carefully, you see hat he was prepared to significantly modify Roe/Casey, but that was it; even so, it's clear he was neither for nor against overturning it. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please cite a reliable source supporting your position. See, also, the policy concerning primary sources, such as the text of a Supreme Court decision. --50.43.100.212 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am the one in full compliance with the primary sources rule as I am the one pointing out what the primary source words actually are; I am quoting them verbatim. As for the caveat of "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"; I am not interpreting them, but the 5-4 editors on this page surely are interpreting them; to the point of misconstruing them. And the bottom line is simple: The sole primary source (the ruling itself) explicitly states exactly what I am claiming it states: Roberts did not join the dissent or the majority on Roe/Casey. Thus, there is no room for debate on this. The ruling was not 5-4, regardless of who might say it was. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are creating an interpretation that does not align with how secondary sources are reporting nor how sources historically handle "concurrence in judgement" opinions. This is clearly SYNTH without RSes to back it up. --M asem (t) 16:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. I am reporting verbatim what the primary source says. But some editors here, for some inexpiable reason, seem intent on ignoring the actual words in the ruling itself, preferring instead to quote secondary sources in contravention of the explicit written words of the primary source. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because by policy we prefer reliable secondary sources that primary sources. M asem (t) 16:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then we'll need to have you document who the "we" is and that this "we" actually has final say on this issue, because what you are saying is on its face, logically inconsistent. And, while you are at it, please cite the precise "policy" which you claim makes the sole primary source document (which is both clear and explicit), inferior to secondary sources. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR is a core content policy that says we favor secondary sources over primary. And what is not helping in you argument is evidence at any time that a concurrence in judgemrnt only is treated as an abstain, which makes that original research we can't do as editors. M asem (t) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what I am saying. Rather, I am saying that in this instance the ruling itself makes clear that Roberts did not join either side. You are the one who introduced the word "abstain" by saying (above) there is no such thing. And that's the original sin WP:OR violation regarding that term on this page. I am not arguing that we should adopt a nomenclature convention which includes the concept of "abstain" for SC voting. Rather, I am pointing out the actual fact that in this ruling, Roberts did not join either side on Roe/Casey. It was you who ran with a distorted characterization of my observation and as a result, you are now arguing against a straw dog of your own creation. The vote was not 5-4. Roberts did not join the dissent Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you believe that "the 5-4 editors on this page surely are interpreting them", you can tag those places in the article with a template or an  template. The Guardian article cited in the article doesn't appear to support the "5-4" interpretation, so a  tag might be appropriate. --50.43.100.212 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources that support the 5-4 (like scotusblog), its what sources support a 5-¹-3 that we don't have at all. --M asem (t) 16:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT verifies what I have been saying "In the end, the chief justice filed a concurring opinion in which he spoke for no one but himself." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/abortion-supreme-court-roberts.html Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But that still means 5 voted to overturn Roe, and 4 did not, regardless of if they wanted to consider it later or not at all. You need secondary sources explicitly saying it was 5-1-3, not interpreting even secondary sources that don't otherwise directly state that. M asem (t) 16:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did not vote to overturn (Roe/Casey), is not the same as did not vote; which is what Roberts made clear he was doing.
 * Roberts did not vote to uphold
 * Roberts did not vote to overturn
 * Roberts did vote (via his narrow concurrence) to stake his own position.
 * Exactly as I have been saying, on Roe/Casey, the correct tally is 5-1-3
 * Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you need sources that explicitly say 5-1-3, not your logic to argue that count, when multiple sources say 5-4. [[User:Masem|Masem ]] (t) 17:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not my "logic", it's the NYT making very clear that Roberts voted by himself on Roe/Casey, and the ruling itself makes clear that there were only 3 dissents. By your process of ignoring Robert's words, it would be equally valid to say 6-3 for the whole thing, as it would be to say 5-4. The only way you can say where Roberts vote belongs, is to read what Roberts wrote. I've done that and have quoted him verbatim. He's made clear that he's not in either camp and the NYT article backs me up on that. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that to write it was 5-3 or 5-1-3 in this way, which is not explicitly stated by sources, would be synthesis. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's not what I am askign that we write. Rather, as clear from above, the change I propose is this:
 * From: a more narrow 5–4 ruling overturned Roe and Casey.
 * To: a lesser majority of 5–3 voted to overturn Roe and Casey (Roberts did not join the dissent or the majority).
 * Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that SCOTUS vote reports are not the typical "yea-nay-abstain" format you might see in Congress. They are given as "# justice that are in concurrence - everyone else that participated". No case in the past is reported using a complex system that includes what you are proposing. We simply can't create a new system here that does not have explicitly sourcing. We can be clear in the prose that Roberts had a separate statement, but all that matters in the short to RSes is that Roberts did not join the majority opinion so he is one of 4 that aren't in the majority. M asem (t) 18:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, your are the one falsely claiming that I want a new system of reporting the tally to become our new standard,. That's not what I suggested at all. Please confine your exaggerated complaints to the actual text change which I've proposed, which is what started this section. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are the one asking us to use a umerical tally method unsupported by sources on this case or in past cases when a Justice is "concuurence in judgment only". These have happened in the past and that opinion is never treated as a wholly new class of a vote for tallying purposes. You need to prove otherwise from secondary sources that this approach you want is more common. M asem (t) 18:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No that's not what I am doing. Rather, I have explained why the tally of 5-4 is not true and I have proposed an edit which is at the top of this section. If you would stop trying to steer this conversation into the ditch, and instead read what I actually suggested, you would know that. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I am saying would be synthesis. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then please cite SCOTUSblog in the article in the places where "5-4" is explicitly mentioned. --50.43.100.212 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog says: "The vote to overturn Roe was 5-4." --50.43.100.212 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That source (SCOTUSblog) is inferior to the actual primary source (the ruling itself), which makes it clear that only 3 joined the dissent, and that Roberts wrote his own concurrence which did not side with the majority or the dissent. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * SCOTUSblog is a secondary source, as required by WP policy. If you want to argue that it is not a reliable source, you should read the article about it first. --50.43.100.212 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not need to argue anything, because it's just bunk; and if you bothered to do your research, you would know that. Read this and understand that what I have been saying about how to tally Supreme Court votes, is correct: http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=vote Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't at all support it, as that would classify Roberts simply as a special concurrance in their database (they call out the case of concur in judgement). That makes it 6 concurrances to 3. M asem (t) 18:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you concede that the Court itself does not count Roberts as a dissent? Then why do you insist on lumping him in with the 3 dissenters? He wrote his own opinion and he did not join the dissenters in his opinion. You and all those who are force-joining Roberts to the 3 so as to make 4, are creating a fake fact from a false reasoning process. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not an official website of the Court, first off. Its a university making a co.puter friendly database of cases. And they wY they are setting it up, the are only considdr the vote on the judgement, not the vote on opinion. So they would classify Roberts as concurring in the judgment which is the 6-3 that we also give. M asem (t) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is that there are three possible ways to go in a ruling and this link makes that clear: https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2020/07/majority-concurring-and-dissenting-decisions/ Roberts do not go with the majority nor the minority (dissent) on Roe/Casey. And because he wrote an opinion which does not join the dissent, you cannot limp him in with the minority, thereby increasing it to 4. It does not matter how many secondary sources you cite, the plainly evident facts of the composition of the ruling (which is the best source) makes clear that Roberts did not join either side. And thus, my proposed edit is valid on its face. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That document (even if for Canada's court) still doesn't talk about the numerical tally. We know Roberts is a unique position here, but there is no basis from sourcing historical or now to change how it is tallied. Its why the infobox spells out the it was concurrence only in.judgmebt, and that after both the lede and body's vote counts we immediately explain Roberts position. There's nothing else we can do without engaging in OR. M asem (t) 18:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You only think that because you struggle tunderstand what I am asking. I am asking that we explacitly clarify that Roberts straddled, which he did. On the mission critical issue, he joined neither side. As for the .ca link, here's an ABA dcouemtn explcity about Supreme court. https://www.oregon.gov/ode/students-and-family/equity/NativeAmericanEducation/Documents/SB13%20Curriculum/Materials_G10_Supreme%20Court_How%20to%20Read%20a%20SC%20Decision%20Article.pdf Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But it does explicitly clarify that: "Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the judgment upholding the Mississippi law but did not join the majority in the opinion to overturn Roe and Casey." Wuffuwwuf (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because Robert wrote a concurrence, in which he does not join the dissent, it's factually wrong to tally this as 5-4 Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the WP:RS on this case say 5-4, and not something else, it doesn't matter if they are wrong. If hypothetically someone proves them wrong sometime, there will be reliable sources saying so and then we can change the page to reflect that. The last paragraph of WP:UNDUE: "If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included." Wuffuwwuf (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not the way the syllabus describes the opinion and the vote count. "ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf, page 8. . So the court ruled 6-3 in favor of Dobbs, just 5-1-3 in the reasoning and subsequent overturning of Roe and Casey. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with just says "5 of the 6 Justices in the majority further ruled that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided..." and just skip 5-4/5-3 stuff?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've tried something similar to what you suggest now—people can see if they agree Wuffuwwuf (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm good with your edit, so long as no one tries again to claim this was 5-4; because it was not. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is a good one - see my suggested text above, at the top of this section. The 5-1-3 debate arose because some editors are wedded to claiming this was 5-4. I am assuming good faith, but it's odd to me that there's an aim here to make it seem closer than it was. It was not 5-4. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Medical/Medication abortion
The article should probably be standardized with respect to using "medical" or "medication" to refer to abortions induced with medications. A couple days ago I changed a use of "medical" to "medication" because it struck me that the former could cause confusion; any abortion is medical in the sense of relating to medicine. But is that wrong and people really do know the phrase "medical abortion" to mean with pills? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Medical abortion" is the term favored by sources, and to distinguish it from surgical abortions. --M asem (t) 14:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Article Neutrality Concern
One thing that I find particularly questionable is the usage of the phrase "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" used in the same prose. Perhaps "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" can equally go hand-in-hand or "abortion rights/pro choice" and "right to life/pro life" can go hand in hand. Using the monikers "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" are both offensive terms to the other side of the argument. This article appears to take a non-neutral stance by incorporating "anti-abortion" in the writeup. I suggest that someone consider this more seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.71.52 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no "pro-abortion" side, there are those for abortion rights and those against abortion rights. Add "rights" to "anti-abortion" if you want. Of 19 (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The resolution to this issue Wikipedia uses is to call them the (pro-) Abortion-rights movement and Anti-abortion movement, which at a glance the article seems to follow. "Pro-abortion" is not really an accurate term to use, as many who want abortion to be legal do not agree that it is an intrinsically good thing. I don't really see what is non-neutral about "anti-abortion", is it not the case that those who want abortion to be illegal think abortion is a bad thing? Endwise (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because Wikipedia is using this nomenclature in other articles doesn't make it right. It would be best to address this problem there as well. I agree with one of the commenters regarding pro-choice/pro-life. Where the "abortion rights" euphemism really took hold is within the last year or two with respect to mandatory vaccination regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. A "pro-choice" point of view (with respect to abortion) is counter to the narrative that many pro-choice advocates have with respect to the COVID vaccine, which is not pro-choice. By changing the branding on the pro-choice movement to "abortion rights," it allows some advocates to appear less hypocritical regarding their vaccine stance. 100.36.71.52 (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not here to right great wrongs. The vaccine stance has zero to do with this. --M asem (t) 14:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that United States anti-abortion movement has been titled that way [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=United+States+abortion-rights+movement] since this WP:RM that ended in early June 2018 Talk:United States anti-abortion movement/Archive 8. Abortion-rights movements has been titled that way since it was created in November 2012 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Abortion-rights+movements] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion-rights_movements&oldid=522385246]. Simple maths tells you that June 2018 to now is over 4 years, and November 2012 to now is nearly 10 years, both are which are well over "last year or two". Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither side is particularly anti-rights. It's about balancing the child's right to life vs the mother's right to choose to carry out the pregnancy. Both sides see themselves as pro-rights. That's why the traditional pro-life/pro-choice terminology makes the most sense to me. Databased (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Neither side is particularly anti-rights."
 * This claim is WP:FALSEBALANCE, and not in line with what reliable sources say about the anti-abortion movement. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the neutral language. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * An obvious reason why "pro-abortion" has never been and will never be considered acceptable, is that it implies a type of conspiracy theory where people want abortions, for whatever reason, something that's often promoted but is nonsense. When abortion is illegal, even when conditions like false pregnancies and miscarriage are not, a consequence is that people also face legal problems in relation to those.  If you search you'll find plenty in the literature.  Just like legal euthanasia doesn't imply the purposeful termination of the elderly, thus, it is the right to die when medicine is powerless.  Where legal, abortion is never and has never been considered an alternative to sex education and contraception.  This is why human rights experts recognize that when it's illegal, it is ideologically motivated, taboo and historically linked to the subjugation of women.  "Child's right to life" is misrepresentation too, it's a  and in the usual time frames where abortion could have been practiced, no authority will claim that without a nervous system it's a legal person.  This will be my only comment about this and I only allowed myself to post it because I'm familiar with the misinformation about it.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What you posted here is largely a list of your own political opinions. "Child's right to life" is misrepresentation too, it's a potential child and in the usual time frames where abortion could have been practiced, no authority will claim that without a nervous system it's a legal person -- Different people having differing views on the beginning of human personhood, that people disagree with your opinions on a philosophical matter doesn't mean that you are correct and everyone else is spouting misinformation. I don't understand why you posted all this. Endwise (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was general guidance and an explanation, more than my own views. But I can't do the homework of other editors, obviously.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What PaleoNeonate posted is the consensus widely accepted by experts on the field, what you are repeating here is indeed ideologically motivated misinformation, and wikipedia users are no strangers to the "people who disagree with your opinion..." talking point as well - a favorite of certain... elements of american political discourse. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your false appeal to authority (which is clearly biased) doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What PaleoNeonate posted was entirely opinion-based seeing as it heavily favours one side of the argument. 86.40.64.77 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The beginning of human personhood is a philosophical matter. When you say the answer to that question is "widely accepted by experts on the field", what field are you referring to? Endwise (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Insert Michael Scott THANK YOU meme here* The guy is talking silly here, he's acting like whatever biased source he decided to trust is the only one worthy of consideration. Needless to say, dismissing this guy's opinion is the only worthwhile option. You presented a perfectly neutral stance on the other hand, as this is a debate that still rages on fervently. 86.40.64.77 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Prolife and pro choice are both NPOV/campaign terms where people euphemistically avoid the term abortion, but that explicitly what we are talking about here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously, those in favor of one side see the phrase "pro-abortion" as POV, and those in favor of the other side see "anti-abortion rights" as POV. I personally don't see any problem with using either "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion rights," but if editors generally consider them to be POV, we can just avoid those phrases and use any of their many synonyms. Joe  (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Mention Obergefell re: Glucksberg?
Judging by the "Legacy" section of Washington v. Glucksberg, the "annotated opinion" from WP:NYT evidently mentions Obergefell v. Hodges's disagreement with the validity of the "deeply rooted" standard. I can't do it because I don't have a subscription lol but it might be a good thing to mention in paragraph two of "Legal analysis" in this article. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

the final sentence of the lede is deeply flawed
This: The decision was divisive among the American public, with polls suggesting 55–60% of Americans opposed overturning Roe is clearly not properly cited. There is no source out there which purports to have surveyed all polls on this topic, concluding that the aggregate result of them is 55-60% as stated. Thus, with no citation to an authoritative aggregate total, the sentence must be changed to with some polls suggesting... Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is implicit that "some" polls should be read there. I don't see that as a major issue. --M asem (t) 13:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To say "some polls" would imply that other polls say something else, but the cited source didn't feel the need to mention other polls, and states authoritatively that it's 55–60%. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Absent the word "some", the implication is that we are asserting this is the aggregate of all known polls, and that we have canvassed for all polls, so as to assert what the "polls" say. There's very little downside to adding the word "some". Omitting it does more harm than good Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, do we have any other polls from RSes that show a number way off from this taken after the ruling? If there were clearly other polls and there were far different, like 30% support, then I would say we'd nix that whole sentence. But if we don't have any other polls, then saying "with some polls reporting... suggests that there are other polls, of which there are not. The language used presently is common with how reliable sources discuss polls broadly, without saying "some". --M asem  (t) 03:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe "polls suggesting around 55–60% of Americans..." would make clear that polling carries with it uncertainty, if that's what you're worried about. Regarding "an authoritative aggregate total", Brookings is probably a good enough source for that I would imagine. Did other sources aggregate the polling differently? Endwise (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracies keep being re-added into the lead
The current version of the lead is completely inaccurate/misleading.

"The decision was described as a victory for the Christian right in American politics. Catholic Church officials and the Southern Baptist Convention celebrated the decision, while other Christian denominations, Jewish organizations, and many Muslims opposed it."

This is completely wrong. There is nowhere near-unanimous consensus on the matter within the Jewish tradition. (Or to include a reference to Islamic organizations opposing the ruling) Many Orthodox Jewish and Islamic organizations celebrated the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson. As a source in the article states:

"“Agudath Israel has long been on record as opposing Roe v. Wade’s legalization of abortion on demand,” said the umbrella organization for orthodox Jewish groups. “Informed by the teaching of Jewish law that fetal life is entitled to significant protection, with termination of pregnancy authorized only under certain extraordinary circumstances, we are deeply troubled by the staggering number of pregnancies in the United States that end in abortion.”"

I suggest that the new version of the lead is:

"The decision was described as a victory for the Christian right in American politics. Catholic Church officials and the Southern Baptist Convention celebrated the decision, while some other religious groups opposed it."

I'm not sure why this keeps getting re-added. It's flat-out wrong to extend selective quotes by (generally) progressive-leaning religious organizations in the United States and extrapolating it to the entire religious tradition. A simple look at abortion law globally (or Islamic rulings on the matter) can. KlayCax (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I do think we are trying to be too specific in the lede on the reactions part. Remember that we should be able to run the lede without any citations (outside of quotes). M asem (t) 20:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true; MOS:LEADCITE says "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Seeing as cited material is indeed being challenged in this talk page, citations are needed. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agudath Israel is one organization, bearing mention in only one paragraph of one source that, apart from that, only reports disagreement with the decision. In fact, the NBC source cited says 83% of American Jews support abortion rights. How can you claim that that doesn't even warrant saying many Jewish organizations oppose the decision (when organizations' disapproval is specifically substantiated in the sources)? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That being said I think it would be fine to scrap the sentence altogether; what you added about the "victory" of the Christian right is a nice replacement. (If doubtful, also recall that the Catholic laity is majority pro–abortion-rights, and that even certain Catholic bishops have expressed misgivings about the Church's official position on abortion.) Wuffuwwuf (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A majority of the laity similarly opposes restrictions on contraception. But I think it would be ridiculous to state that it's not considered an infallible, unchangeable article of the Catholic faith that any Catholic is obligated to believe as a part of greater Catholic teaching. KlayCax (talk)
 * So you agree that it only need cover the beliefs of officials? What, then, was wrong with the phrasing about "Jewish organizations"? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1.) The pronouncement is considered infallible and unchangeable in the Catholic faith. A similar situation does not exist in the Jewish tradition. (Where infallible pronouncements on the matter don't exist.) 2.) Many Jewish organizations, such as the previously mentioned Agudath Israel, have come out in *favor* of Dobbs v. Jackson. There isn't a unified position among Jewish organizations. KlayCax (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But the only source for the approval of Catholic clergy that also mentions Jewish leaders/organizations says that the latter disapprove of the decision, not that they're significantly ambivalent. Conversely, the only source from which you would be drawing the disapproval of some Jewish factions presents them as an outlier and says "many" Jewish leaders disapprove of Dobbs. These facts justify inclusion of "many" Jewish organizations' disapproval in any sentence in the lead that refers to Catholic bishops' approval. As an aside, claiming that the "infallib[ility] and unchangeab[ility] in the Catholic faith" of anti-abortion teachings implies that being anti-abortion is the only important position within the Catholic Church (which I take to be your first argument) is arguably use of a primary source, inasmuch as it relies upon the Church's own teachings on the ultimate authority of its magisterium. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only is it not a unified position, Agudath Israel appears to be the ONLY jewish religious organization that supports Dobbs, based on how much right wing pundits love referencing them, but not any other jewish organization in relation to Dobbs. It seems that Agudath Israel is in fact an outlier in this matter, and pundits point to them to create the impression that Dobbs has more jewish support than it actually does. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Southern Baptist Convention and Catholic Church are definitely notable enough to include in the lead. I don't think any other religious organizations is notable (or influential enough) to include.KlayCax (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think mentioning that it was a victory to the christian right, while failing to mention at the same time that it was also opposed by virtually everybody else is a major ommission. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Other conservative religious groups also supported the ruling.KlayCax (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Not neutral
The criticism section is a lot longer than the support section. 99.197.202.188 (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That alone doesn't prove there is a neutrality problem. Reliable sources may cover one set of reactions more than another. Are there specific reactions whose inclusion you dispute? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The opinions of Republicans who opposed the decision are given a lot of weight. Also, this paragraph seems problematic:
 * "Dobbs was decided in the same month as other rulings of the 2021–22 term that favored conservative politics, including Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, which weakened tribal oversight of Native American lands; New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which expanded the right for open carry of guns; Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which drew back the separation of church and state in the Establishment Clause; and West Virginia v. EPA, which weakened the power of federal agencies. Collectively, these decisions have been called a "judicial coup", including by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Ocasio-Cortez demanded that the President and Congress act to rein in the Supreme Court's power, as she considered these decisions devastating to the country."
 * "Dobbs was decided...federal agencies" is a neutral statement of fact which does not belong in the Criticism section. That could just as easily be used in the context of "Conservatives considered all of these decisions victories for their beliefs." "Collectively, these...to the country" is a statement of AOC's opinion, which does belong in the Criticism section. 99.197.202.188 (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To understand the context of the judicial coup, it is necessary to outline the decisions that were considered to be part of it, so that is not a neutral fact, and hence why it is in the criticism section. --M asem (t) 04:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was in the process of finding another place for it and changed the rest of the wording already. Shall I just put that first part back? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I put it back, but did the statement out of wikivoice to be clear its not meant as a statement of fact. M asem (t) 04:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "critics said..." isn't accurate either. Conservatives/supporters of the decision agree that all of those decisions support conservative politics. They see that as a good thing while liberals/opponents of the decision see it as a bad thing, but they agree that all of those cases support conservative politics. 99.197.202.188 (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, to say the court is being partisan is in itself a criticism, though. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry for all the edits. What do you think of this? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that the court made decisions supporting conservative politics is not necessarily the same as saying the court is partisan. The undisputed fact is that the court made several decisions that line up with conservative politics. That's not debatable, and nobody tries to debate it. There are two opinions regarding this fact, a conservative opinion and a liberal opinion. The conservative opinion is that the constitution supports conservative politicsz and the court is correctly recognizing this. The liberal opinion is that the constitution supports liberal politics, and the court is disregarding the constitution and making partisan conservative decisions. Wikipedia should state the undisputed fact as an undisputed fact, and state the two opinions as opinions. 99.197.202.188 (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well ok, does that mean you agree or disagree with the current wording though? It's not clear to me personally that that locates a problem with the current wording. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the current wording. Currently, it says in the "criticism" section:
 * "Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Dobbs and other recent decisions with outcomes favorable to conservatives—including Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, which weakened tribal oversight of Native American lands; New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which expanded the right for open carry of guns; Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which drew back the separation of church and state in the Establishment Clause; and West Virginia v. EPA, which weakened the power of federal agencies—a "judicial coup", demanding that President Joe Biden and Congress act to rein in the Supreme Court's power."
 * I think the article should say "The ruling came around the same time as several other decisions supporting conservative politics:..." In the "criticism" section, it should say "Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Dobbs and other recent decisions with outcomes favorable to conservatives a "judicial coup", demanding that President Joe Biden and Congress act to rein in the Supreme Court's power." 99.197.202.188 (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Splitting the part that is context for what she said from what she said, simply because it's not in and of itself criticism, isn't necessary. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe splitting the paragraph is a good idea.
 * "Dobbs was decided in the same month as other rulings of the 2021–22 term that favored conservative politics, including Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, which weakened tribal oversight of Native American lands; New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which expanded the right for open carry of guns; Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which drew back the separation of church and state in the Establishment Clause; and West Virginia v. EPA, which weakened the power of federal agencies."
 * This section is good the way it is, and should be in a different section separate from criticism, since it's not criticism, but rather objective fact. The part in the criticism section should read like this:
 * "Dobbs, along with Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Kennedy v. Bremerton and West Virginia v. EPA, have been collectively called a "judicial coup", by critics such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Ocasio-Cortez demanded that the President and Congress act to rein in the Supreme Court's power, as she considered these decisions devastating to the country." 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The list of cases that raise issues are not something that can be said objectively. It is definite not something to be kept in Wikivoice M asem (t) 13:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The list of cases is not a list of cases that "raise issues." It's a list of cases that support conservative politics. Liberals tend to believe these cases "raise issues"; conservatives tend to believe that they do not. It's an objective fact that the court made several conservative rulings in a short period of time; it's debatable whether or not that is problematic. 99.197.202.188 (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is original research to determine if a case decision favors conservative politics or not, because that determination is not explicitly in the decision. M asem (t) 20:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is that? Is it not supported by reliable sources? 46.97.170.139 (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources may support it, but that's a subjective claim, since there is nothing official in how the SCOTUS itself reports that delineates what is a conservative-favored ruling. Thus it cannot be treated as fact in wikivoice, but we certainly can say the claims to that made by media or others with attribution as needed. M asem (t) 12:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"people and their elected representatives" in the holding
I don't really see a reason that we have to crib from the biased perspective of the primary source and use this awkward, opaque phrase and it's implied spin rather than just plain language like "to the states." It wasn't my understanding that the holding had to directly come from the text of the holding opinion, nor that it's a practice we've used in the past. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * An issue is that while Alito's statement strongly implies this rests with states, "people and their representatives" can jnclude Congress. Its not clear that only states can regulate abortion. M asem (t) 13:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * the biased perspective of the primary source doesn't make sense. It is the primary source; for this article, it cannot be biased William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Primary sources can of course be biased, I don't think we need to get into that. The point on Congress potentially weighing in is fair, but I still thing the phrasing is opaque. Perhaps "returned to the political/democratic process(es)" gets closer. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We should not be changing the wording of the holding since that's a quote from the syllabus. --M asem (t) 04:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And from the opinion, too. As to bias, primary sources can in general be biased but they cannot be biased about themselves in teh sense being used here William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Just skimming through the list of cases at 2021 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in reverse order: Biden v. Texas quotes word-for-word from the opinion, West Virginia v. EPA quotes word-for-word from the opinion, Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta quotes word-for-word from the opinion, Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety is missing the holding in the infobox?, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District quotes word-for-word from the opinion, Concepcion v. United States quotes word-for-word from the opinion, Ruan v. United States quotes word-for-word from the opinion... I think you get the point.
 * It seems that quoting it word-for-word is indeed the established practice. I don't see a reason to change that practice here, especially for something as minor as a (largely) political disagreement about what it means to restore something to "the people and their elected representatives" vs. "the states". Endwise (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Seriously biased to insinuate that the Supreme Court is partisan
This statement simply cannot co-exist with a commitment to neutrality.

"The ideological shift of the Supreme Court that intensified during the Trump administration and culminated with the 2020 appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett made Dobbs a potential vehicle to challenge Roe"

The Supreme Court is not split between Democrats or Republicans in the same way that the Senate or House are, at least in an official capacity. The Court's role is to interpret the Constitution from a non-partisan and legal perspective. This is why conservative judges sometimes vote against conservative views, and progressive judges sometimes vote against progressive views.

This statement is the equivalent of saying the FBI or CDC are ideologically partisan. Perhaps it's true, but this is merely an opinion and there is no evidence that their decisions are based on ideology. By the same token, we should not insinuate that the only reason Dobbs was ruled is because of a conservative majority. The decision was, in an official capacity, a legal interpretation by an institution which is not technically partisan.

Otherwise, we would also have to adopt the same language for every other institution. Eg - can we say the only reason the CDC issued a mask mandate is because of their supposed left-wing ideology? No, that would be inappropriate and biased. It is not the role of an encyclopaedia to suggest that official taxpayer funded institutions are partisan when there is no consistent evidence of such.

2001:8003:3A5A:7E00:4074:659C:92E7:16FD (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that any editorial tone, even if cited to sources, which insinuates or presupposes partisan bias to be the driver of the Justices decisions, must be scrupulously sourced to include a balance of sources. It's common knowledge that virtually every writer at every source opining on this topic (abortion) has strong personal views. Thus, if we only cite "left" or "right" sources, we are flavoring the tone in that direction. And keep in mind that Justices are bound to be neutral and apply the law, whereas "news" sources are not. Thus the presupposition that Justices are neutral must be afforded to all the Justices on every case. Only when a full panoply of sources, both "left" and "right" agree that a particular ruling seems biased by the personal politics of the Justices, should we be amplifying allegations of that, by polluting our tone with it. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court is not split between Democrats or Republicans in the same way that the Senate or House are, at least in an official capacity. 
 * Not in an official capacity, correct. However, with the addition of the trump appointees, every single one of which has been riddled with controversies, yet have been confirmed by a republican majority senate with votes along party lines, that has changed. Reliable sources, such as the ones citing what you claim to be "biased" information agree that with the radical rightward push of the GOP, there is now indeed a partisan split in the Supreme court, in the sense that GOP-appointed justices consistently vote in a way that advances a republican agenda - a fact that you can verify just by looking at the wikipedia pages for the 2020 and 2021 term opinions of the SCOTUS and taking note of the repeating color pattern in the table.46.97.170.139 (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As Tondelleo mentioned above, virtually every source on this is coming from a position of personal bias. There is no objective evidence that the court is ideologically aligned, only opinions. Voting patterns also suggest the progressive judges favour Democrat policies, but it would inappropriate to claim this is the only reason the 3 judges opposed overturning Dobbs. The decision should be portrayed as a neutral interpretation of the Constitution. I think a fair compromise here would be to a) specifically mention that Trump's three appointees voted to overturn, and b) some media outlets and commentators have accused or suggested the court is biased (treating this as an opinion rather than a fact). Hope this works Domiy (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But the RS say that there has been a palpable ideological shift that influences the court's decisions. Take the New Yorker piece to which the sentence OP quotes is cited, for instance: it is unambiguous in saying ideology influences the court's decisions (note the the New Yorker's entry in WP:RSPSS and cited RfC's). We can't devalue or ignore RS just because we take issue with what we may suppose their reasoning was. Also, do you have RS claiming the court isn't ideologically motivated? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Especially with the rules on the tail end of the term (WV v EPA, Bruen, etc.) that there's talk that the conservative members of the court basically launched a coup of long-standing rights in favor of Republican ideals. Obviously, we're not going to go that far, but the sources are very very clear that each judge has an ideological alignment that generally falls from which party the President that nominated them was in. M asem (t) 02:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ...virtually every source on this is coming from a position of personal bias.
 * That is not our call to make. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources. Bias is not a factor. Reliablility and accuracy of reporting is.
 * Voting patterns also suggest the progressive judges favour Democrat policies, but it would inappropriate to claim this is the only reason the 3 judges opposed overturning Roe.
 * This is WP:FALSEBALANCE. It would be an inapropriate claim, because they represent the legal and academic consensus on this matter. The court just happens to be packed with more ideologically motivated republican appointees. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That sources repeatedly identify that the court is 6 conservatives and 3 liberals is sufficient to point out the ideological shifts, not political shifts, which would be different. --M asem (t) 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes the reliable sources are quite certain there's an ideological shift. They specifically question the judicial impartiality of the court. As to the claims about what "we would need to" say about the CDC, they should be addressed to the relevant talk page, but RS are far from asserting that "the only reason the CDC issued a mask mandate is because of their supposed left-wing ideology." Wuffuwwuf (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this is a whataboutism. Reliable sources don't assert that the mask mandates are due to left-wing ideology, because such an assertion would be WP:BULLSHIT. This is not the case with the widely covered and objectively observable right wing ideology of the republican-appointed justices. 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't claim they do. I was disagreeing with the idea that RS say the CDC is comparable with scotus in ideological influence. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree needs to be sourced. If not sourced I think it’s biased. Tentemp (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It is all sourced in the body if the article (in the background section) and per LEDECITE, does not have to be cited in the lede. M asem (t) 19:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think that there is a consensus for inclusion. It is partisan. And not clearly referenced. Also, verifiability doesn’t mean inclusion. Tentemp (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, per LEDECITE the sources for it are in the body and do not need to be in the lead. And we have reliable sources that clearly characterize the membership of the Supreme Court this way, so its not partisan. M asem (t) 23:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't use language like "originalist" here without sources in the body that use that term (per this diff). And I've not seen that term used at all in conjunction with the modern SCOTUS. But conservative and liberal is used by nearly every major RS, so this is not a bias/partisan term. --M asem (t) 00:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The fact that reliable sources say the supreme court is influenced by ideology and partisanship doesn't somehow disqualify those sources, or mean that they themselves are somehow biased or partisan. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This paragraph should be removed. Tentemp (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the paragraph from the lead that you're objecting to is drawn from the Background section. Citations for it can be found there, so it is verifiable. As to notability, virtually every RS that mentions the history of the court in reporting on Dobbs describes the justices in "partisan," i.e. liberal/conservative, terms. We shouldn't second-guess them. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph should be remain because this whole argument is a bad faith farce, with members blatantly ignoring the rules of how articles are constructed in a silly attempt to claim there's a conspiracy to make [insert ideological group here] look bad (which is what the argument above is, let's not pretend otherwise). This whole discussiob is bad faith nonsense and the fact that some posts are engaging in frankly fantasy, as the court has a long history of being ideological and the current ongoing events are nothing new or unexpected for informed people. And of course, I assume it's a coincidence that your definition of "non-partisan news" just so happens to match your ideological preferences. Elishop (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"Common misconception" claim
I have removed a claim - made in wiki-voice - that it is/was "a common misconception" that Dobbs made abortion illegal nationwide.

The statement is sourced to a single article from a non-legal publication (Sexuality Research and Social Policy) that is from 2020 and predates Dobbs (2000). I have serious WP:SYN and WP:WEIGHT concerns about this:
 * On the SYN side, this tends to misleads our readers: the text is under a section header that says "Post-decision" and strongly suggests that Americans were/are ignorant about the effects or scope of Dobbs. Yet the survey is from 2020, well before Dobbs, and well before the major change in the ideological composition of the Supreme Court that led to Dobbs.
 * On the due-weight concerns: the citation says that the survey referred to was based on "quota-based sampling" survey of "a national sample of English- and Spanish-speaking US adults"; in other words, it's a single poll. As we all know, individual polls are subject to substantial errors and variations depending on the sample size, sample method, and the wording of questions. This is why when, when making generalized statements, aggregate polling is almost always better than relying on individual polls.

There will be a lot of scholarship, survey research, and journalism on the impact of Dobbs and public perceptions of Dobbs. I see no reason why we should rush to stick in older, already-dated individual polls that predate Dobbs. Neutralitytalk 01:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur with Neutrality Andre🚐 01:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is the text and RS in question, for reference:
 * The overturning of Roe did not make abortion illegal nationwide, contrary to a common misconception. a.

b.

c.

d.
 * Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Banal statements like "The overturning of Roe did not make abortion illegal nationwide, contrary to a common misconception" require banal evidence. A statement by a single RS that there exists a common misconception - without any study or anything - is more than enough to label something a common misconception. Not only do we have a study (the results of which indicate this is an extremely common misconception), we also have multiple sources directly calling this a common misconception. This is actually major overkill in terms of what we require. For reference, the Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper states,
 * "65.7% of the sample incorrectly answered that abortion would be illegal everywhere if Roe v. Wade were overturned"
 * While this Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper is perfectly adequate for establishing such a trivial thing as "there is a common misconception", multiple sources, before and after the repeal of Roe v. Wade, report that there is a common misconception here. I reject claims of synthesis, since all the sources call this a common misconception, and nothing is being inferred beyond that. The fact that the Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper in particular is from 2020 is quite irrelevant, since literally all RS are from the past. If using sources that are from the past is WP:SYNTH, then literally every single source on Wikipedia is synthetic and we need to delete the entire encyclopedia and start again using only sources that come from the future.
 * If someone has a more recent study contradicting this finding, that may be the basis for discussion, however, if not, we're happy to use sources that are a few years old on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOTSYNTH, particularly the SYNTH is not a catch-all section.
 * I'm all in favor of continuing to describe this as a common misconception. The RS are very cut and dry on this. Joe  (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I don't think anything but that paper should be used around the misconception idea; none of the others speak from a more neutral voice at a national level.
 * But to the point I think Neutrality is making is that when we frame "Dobbs overturned Roe but what impact that had had numerous misconceptions", that using a source pre-dating Dobbs is a problem. But if were frame, "Prior to Dobbs, there was misconceptions on what effects overturning Roe would have.", then you actually have something that that paper applies to. It would be nice if we had other more recent (post-Dobb) sources that spoke to misconception that were expressed in the immediate wake of Dobbs, but I haven't seen any that aren't questionable sources or focused on one side of the issue. --M asem (t) 12:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a good fix. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That re-framing makes the WP:SYN issues somewhat less severe but still not acceptable (it's still vague, it still makes a broad statement/characterization based on a single poll, it's passive voice, etc.) ; it also fails to address the WP:WEIGHT issues. If we actually wanted text that would be directly related to Dobbs (the subject of this article) and would get at the confusion point, we would add something like this, cited to post-Dobbs material summarizing the actual post-decision facts on the ground:


 * Neutralitytalk 14:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 14:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's undue weight, when there aren't sources claiming different things about what people believe happens in Roe's absence. And yes it's one poll, but are there guidelines for non-medical articles specifying that it's therefore not sufficient? Especially since, even if the credible interval were quite wide, the belief would still be "common." I can't actually read anything more than the abstract though. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to go along with Masem's suggestion. I do still personally think the other sources are reliable for what they're being used for, (e.g. WP:RSCONTEXT), but if other editors prefer we only use the Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper, that's fine. Framing the statement as "prior to Dobbs" or moving the statement about the misconception into the pre-Dobbs section would be fine too, although we should be careful in so doing not to introduce actual WP:SYNTH into the article by inferring that the finding in the Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper has changed in the meantime, unless we've actually got RS to that effect.
 * Funnily enough, arguing that this is no longer a common misconception because "public interest in abortion has gone up recently," and thereby inferring that the findings in the Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper have changed enough to make it no longer a common misconception, that's actually a synthetic conclusion not independently contained in the RS.
 * Oh, and this concern about due weight is absurd. The Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper deals with public opinion about what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade. Anything to do with Roe v. Wade getting overturned has to do with Dobbs, since Dobbs was the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. I mean, it's tautological, writing it out in plain English makes me feel like a dolt, it's so patently obvious.
 * If someone can find some reliable post-Dobbs sources on this issue (some sources that we can all mostly agree are reliable, anyway) then we should definitely mention it in the post-Dobbs section. I might try to look around in the literature, if I find anything I'll bring it up here for your consideration. Cheers all! Joe  (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is the claim that it's a common misconception. That claim is hard to support and not necessary. We know that Dobbs caused a number of states to increase their abortion restrictions, while other states did not. That is all we need to say here. Andre🚐 16:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The statement in question is very banal, and the RS are quite clear. Joe  (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that it's reasonable to assume the commonness or uncommonness of the misconception might have shifted along with the major events we're describing. And in fact, the nature of the public's understanding of Roe prior to Dobbs isn't strictly about Dobbs or the public reaction to Dobbs. So the original usage is synth and probably many other usages are synth if we aren't careful. It's also not neutral because it seems to imply that the public is not informed. Andre🚐 20:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Inferring that "the commonness or uncommonness of the misconception might have shifted along with the major events we're describing" is actually a synthetic proposition - which is fine, this is a talk page - but it is important that we don't introduce this synthetic reasoning into the article, where it would be SYNTH.
 * Also, what you've just described as SYNTH is some hardcore WP:NOTSYNTH. Even User Neutrality isn't suggesting that; Neutrality's equally absurd suggestion is that "the nature of the public's understanding of Roe prior to Dobbs isn't strictly about Dobbs" thing is an issue of due weight. I'll reiterate, the Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper deals with public opinion about what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade. Anything to do with Roe v. Wade getting overturned has to do with Dobbs, since Dobbs was the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. This is real basic stuff.
 * I'd say "this discussion has showcased the worst misuse and misunderstanding of WP:GUIDELINES I've ever seen!" but that would be a blatant lie. I'm sorry to say, this hasn't even come close to the worst I've ever seen. A little misunderstanding of SYNTH is sadly about as common as this misconception (that is, roughly 60-70%), and some editors take it a lot further. Still, this attempt to throw every guideline at the wall and see what sticks has been pretty wack. Joe  (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be synth to make a statement in the article sourced to a survey about what people thought about Roe and then say that they thought that about Dobbs. Those are two disjoint events. Andre🚐 13:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What you're describing would, indeed, not be SYNTH in any case. However, what you're describing, "make[ing] a statement in the article sourced to a survey about what people thought about Roe and then say[ing] that they thought that about Dobbs", is also not part of the statement in question. Please see the text again:
 * The overturning of Roe did not make abortion illegal nationwide, contrary to a common misconception.
 * Note how there is no mention of Dobbs. Not that a mention of Dobbs in this context would be SYNTH or a due weight issue, as described in some extremely plain detail above, but even if we take this rather bad misuse of SYNTH at face value, it doesn't even apply to this statement.
 * And I wish to make it very, very, very clear: this is not SYNTH. Perhaps I should have given some citations earlier, rather than relying on people to actually read the guidelines. Here's a big hint that this isn't SYNTH, from WP:NOTSYNTH,
 * SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources.
 * The statement in question can be individually derived from the "65.7% of the sample incorrectly answered that abortion would be illegal everywhere if Roe v. Wade were overturned" statement in the Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper, nothing is being combined from multiple sources to make new conclusions not found in those sources individually, because information from only one statement in only one source is needed to base the "common misconception" statement on, therefore it cannot be synthesis, and therefore it cannot be SYNTH. Like I say, misunderstandings of what is SYNTH abound. Please actually read WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSYNTH all the way through before making silly SYNTH suggestions. Joe  (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes it synthetic is relating it to the actual overturning of Roe, i.e. Dobbs. The statement is literally true. Dobbs did not make abortion illegal everywhere. However the implication is that people thought Dobbs would make abortion illegal, which isn't a given. Dobbs was reported long before Roe actually was overturned. So, it's not reasonable to imply that the misconception was in force right before Dobbs, because we don't know that. Andre🚐 07:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION in full. Actually, no, here's the full text, just so that nobody has to suffer the arduous task of clicking a link.
 * SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition.  Don't.  If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone.  Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing.


 * Nothing is insinuated by the mere fact that these sentences are in the same paragraph. The reader would get the same meaning from these sentences if they were in separate paragraphs, or in different parts of the article.

This is not SYNTH (in fact, as stated above, it's WP:NOTSYNTH). Explicitly stating a single fact taken from a single source is never SYNTH. Literally dozens of other statements in this article with pre-2022 RS relate to Roe's overturning and they are also not SYNTH, for the exact same reason. This all literally has nothing to do with the synthesis, which is a very specific type of OR. This conversation has become silly. Joe (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact I started a similar thread not long ago. Instead of calling it "silly" you could assume good faith. I do think using this old Roe poll is putting too much emphasis on one poll, and using it to imply that people are or will be misinformed about Dobbs. That is a kind of inappropriate synthetic construction. Andre🚐 08:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying "this is SYNTH" over and over again without any justification will not make it SYNTH. My calling this silly is my assuming good faith. A more cynical editor might assume a lot worse than mere silliness from this exchange, and it is a fact that this is now very silly - and messy too, dear I moved your comment down and added a page break in an attempt to keep it clear who is talking to whom in this mess, otherwise it would've gotten swallowed. Hope you don't mind.  Joe  (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

- - -
 * I agree that the Archdiocese of SF source seems unlikely to be reliable for this topic. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaving out that source, or any of the other journalistic sources User Masem mentioned, and just using the Sexuality Research and Social Policy paper is perfectly fine by me. Ultimately, what is and isn't a reliable source is down to the judgement of the editors, and if other editors don't feel those sources are good enough for this article, that's that. Joe  (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree with Neutrality in her/his removal of the copy that it is/was "a common misconception" that Dobbs made abortion illegal nationwide. Not only are the reasons that s/he provided accurate, to make it sound like women don't know what the hell is going on in regard to their rights is not acceptable.  We all saw this well-demonstrated recently in Kansas , for example.  Sectionworker (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Note on new development
As Rolling Stone is the originator of this story and they aren't considered reliable for big political news, we definitely don't want to add this until there's collaboration and some type of commentary about it, but this does involve a claim that a religious group that had submitted an amici for the Dobbs case was also involved in praying with the Justices. . I just want to have that there in case others see additional stories on it. M asem (t) 01:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one from The Independent about it Wuffuwwuf (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind they point to the Rolling Stones report, so that's not separate collab. Particularly with the added statement there from the group that claims they didn't. --M asem (t) 01:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean the Rolling Stone article links directly to the video where she says it, and the Independent article makes it sound like the Independent itself is also saying that's what one can hear in the video. Fwiw Wuffuwwuf (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We need confirmation that doesn't come from this person but a separate confirmation. Otherwise its just that person's claim. M asem (t) 02:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohhh i see. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This nyt article contains an independent account that religious groups did try to influence the justices, and did pray with them. It's not the same group as the woman on the hot mic was in. It appears to be corroborated in contemporaneous emails obtained by the reporters. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Impact on 2022 midterms
Although 50 or 100 years from now people may not care, the impact this ruling had on the midterms is very significant. Unless I missed it, nowhere in the article is it mentioned that Republicans bucked historical trends and significantly underperformed. I believe that this is lead worthy. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

the last sentence is the lede is still false
This:
 * "giving individual states the power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal law"

Should be replaced with:
 * "leaving the issue of abortion to be regulated on the state level"

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The replacement is wrong because the device does not forestall a federal ban or allowance on abortions by Congress, which states still be required to adhere too. While presently there is no federal law, the decisions leaves open for one. M asem (t) 18:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But what I propose is factually accurate based on the status of the currently controlling laws. Refusing to make accurate updates now because laws might change in the future, is a diversion from this discussion in that speculation about what may occur later is not a valid rationale to impede accuracy today. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

False sentence in lede
This "giving individual states the full power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal law" is not factually true. The states are only free to regulate to the extent a right reserved to the people is not implicated ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"; re: Tenth Amendment). And given that Roe was only recently overturned, there has yet to be any cases litigated which allege that a reserved, but unenumerated right, is implicated Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I updated the sentence in question just now; please discuss here, prior to any reversions. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That change was too much of a POV shift (as it argued from a pro-abortion angle on how many years Roe v. Wade had been in place). The statement in the lede leaves open the possibility of a remaining federal right ("not protected by federal law") that has yet to be captured in case law, but until that case law exists, the states have effectively full control on abortion rights. M asem (t) 12:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem - I am appalled at your premature reversion. You 100% failed to dialog in good faith with me, before you reverted me. But now that you are here, please address the contention I've made above, which is that the current sentence as written is self-evidently factually false, as it flies in the face of the plain text of the Tenth Amendment. There is no question that the text of the Tenth Amendment plainly states that the people have rights which are reserved to them. Thus, to say that all non-federal power over abortion is now with the states, is plainly false. Thus, I urge you to actively participate in excising that false statement from this article. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per this dialog, I have made a modest edit, taking into account the concerns raised by Masem Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * By bringing up the 10th Amendment, you are engaging in WP:OR because you are making conclusions about the topic based on your application of that Amendment. It very well may be a correct application, but we need WP:RS to do that for us.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * no, that is not what I am doing at all. Rather, I am using the reliable source of the text of the Tenth, to show that the assertion which I've deleted from the article is indeed false, as that deleted assertion is a blanket statement which is plainly contradicted on its face by the Tenth. Thus, if the statement which I've objected to and deleted is reinserted, it's got to cited to a reliable source which supports its contention. The contention is false, so without a source to show that it's true, it's got to be deleted. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is that reliable source?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are putting backwards because this "giving individual states the full power" is an unsupported statement. It's a false fact. And the reliable source which shows it to be false is the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth clearly shows that no FULL POWER on any non-delineated issue is assigned to the states; some power is kept by the people. Thus, anyone claiming FULL POWER to the states on any point, must themselves provide the citation to the reliable source, for it is they who are making the claim. I've only shown the Tenth to show that the FULL POWER claim is false. Those wanting to claim that FULL POWER is true, must prove it by adding a citation to a reliable source. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are engaging on original research. Nearly all RSes discuss the impact as Dobbs as giving states control of abortion rights. You might be right that some part of the Tenth suggests differently, but we need a reliable to explicitly talk about the effect the Tenth might have, not your opinion of jt. M asem (t) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that the sentence could be rewritten to say "leaving the issue of abortion to be regulated o the state level". The problem is with the phrase "full power". That phrase s clearly contradicted by the plain text of the Tenth Amendment. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A: The 10th Amendment says that
 * B: The Dobbs decision is described by sources as leaving it up to the states entirely
 * C: Your WP:OR that combines A and B
 * I know it's frustrating, but you cannot say A + B = C unless reliable sources do. Even if it's obvious to you and you think it should be to everyone else.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to insert any claims about the Tenth into the article; rather I am showing the Tenth as the authoritative source regarding the allocation of power between Federal, States and the People. Reading it plainly proves that "full power" to the states not a true statement. And therefore, anyone trying to claim that "full power" (or any variant of that phrasing) is true, must substantiate their claim. It's no different than if someone tried to say "the full composition of water is H2", leaving out the "O". One does to need to cite a reliable source to reference an established fact in a discussion on this page. It is an established and irrefutable fact that the Tenth Amendment allocates some power to the People. Thus, any statement of any kind on any topic which says that only the Federal or States have power is false; because the Tenth clearly establishes that some power is reserved to the People. And no source other than a basic reading of the Tenth itself is required to establish the truth of this fact. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We must have RS bring the 10th Amendment into this discussion. If we don't we can't include it. This isn't chemistry; we rely on SCOTUS to apply the constitution and amendments.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. As reasonably capable editors, we are able to understand the Tenth well enough to see if something we write as a certainty is in fact, an actual certainty. It's a common knowledge established fact that the Tenth allocates power three ways: Federal, States, the People. And there's nothing in this ruling which says that the states have "full power". Thus, the actual OR violation is to say that the states have "full power" because that's an unsupported interpretation of the ruling. And not only that, but it's a false one, as per what I've shown via my citation to the Tenth. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how else to explain it. Maybe you should take this to the WP:ORN?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. As an alternative, I suggest that you are still welcome to dialog with me here. And you can continue such dialog by answering if you agree that it's an established fact there is no mention in this ruling of "full power" being allocated to the states over abortion. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

New reporting from Joan Biskupic citing sources within scotus
According to reporting from CNN's Joan Biskupic from sources within scotus:
 * "The leak also had the effect of hindering internal debate among the justices in the Dobbs case. Justices later privately revealed that public disclosure of the 5-4 split and the tone of the opinion outright rejecting Roe v. Wade effectively froze the votes. That eliminated the opportunity for compromise, as can happen with hard-fought cases in the final weeks of negotiation."

Is this worth citing as confirmation that the leak did in fact solidify their votes? Worth adding? Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I would really want to see it in context of how Biskupic stated in in the book that is shortly to come out. It would be better to cite the book directly than second-hand info. M asem (t) 02:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives
From the ruling: "Holding: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives." (https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/). What I said above about "the people" is correct and it's also correct that this SCOTUS conclusion ruled favorably regarding the Tenth Amendment rationale (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dobbs_v._jackson_women%27s_health_organization_%282022%29). I repeat my good faith request to change the ending sentence of the lede to "eliminating federal protections for abortion." Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
"...Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which drew back the separation of church and state in the Establishment Clause..."

This is one view of the ruling, but others believe that speech by government employees is not necessarily government speech, and that the school's policy against religious speech actually was an infringement of separation of church and state because the state was limiting someone's (Kennedy's) religious freedom. 206.204.236.108 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Who are "others"? If you'd like this view to be added to the page, please WP:CITE. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Orthodox Church
I understand the objection that User:Masem put forth. Personally, I still think it should be included, but I understand opposing views. Do people believe that the reaction of the Orthodox Church in America should be included? 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Orthodox Christians account for 1% of the population, so probably not. Also, I have to go to work soon, so I cannot participate in this discussion much longer. Scorpions1325 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * True, but Muslims also make up only 1% of the population.3Kingdoms (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can find a third party source that includes the Orthodox Church's reaction, that's appropriate. But from a NPOV standpoint, including opinions from first party sources would lead to anyone with an opinion in the position to add it, which us not a good approach. M asem (t) 15:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

My problems with the disputed text
According to the CDC, the maternal mortality rate did not increase following the decision. I don't understand why still insists on keeping the material about maternal mortality and poverty in the article even though none of the sources they cite verify their claims. Also, referring to the Catholic Church as a fundamentalist denomination is wrong because no reliable sources described it as such, and they do not teach scriptural inerrancy. Pinging. Scorpions1325 (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. The lumping of Fundamentalism with the Catholic Church in inaccurate (besides Pope Francis and "progressive" church leaders also praised the decision to overturn). NYT article is paywalled so I cannot read it, but a quick survey, shows multiple reliable sources (none of which are anti-abortion) saying the abortion decreased in the United States after Dobbs. My quick reading of the maternal health sources makes me support Scorpions change. The New Republic one mostly cites studies that claim maternal health will shoot up as opposed to proof that it did. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1.) Measuring the "legal abortion rate" rather than estimated "total national abortion incidence" is misleading. It doesn't count many abortions. There were obviously not <50 abortions in 2022 in Texas. That's a dramatic undercount.
 * 2.) Multiple sources state maternal mortality and poverty rose in states that severely restricted abortion. is just one of them. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other professional associations have said similar.
 * 3.) It was in reference to traditionalist Catholicism: which is generally considered a form of Christian fundamentalism in the academic literature. There is a diversity within Catholicism on abortion. (There is dispute on whether these are infallible statements or just the opinion of the Popes of the time.) For instance, the Church once widely promoted capital punishment, now, many theologians and bishops within the Church consider it an intrinsic evil that has always been wrong.
 * It would be editorialization and a violation of WP: NPOV to say there's a consensus. Hope that clarifies everything. KlayCax (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the text you have provided, a better way of wording it would be A poll of OBGYNs found that the decision made their jobs more difficult, with patients facing worse outcomes. I have not been able to find any sources that claim that maternal mortality rose faster in states that restricted the procedure after the decision. The ones that did only applied to 2021 or earlier. Scorpions1325 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Addressing the Catholic part. I have not seen traditionalist Catholicism referred to as a type of in the Fundamentalism. Second it was the whole Church leadership include people like Cardinal Cupich supported the overturn of Roe. The Church's condemnation of abortion goes all the way back to the 1st century.3Kingdoms (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, traditionalists have no power in the church ATM. Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Error in "Common Law" Section
The current article reads as follows

"Blackstone's Commentaries and other widely consulted common law authorities drew a distinction between early-term and post-quickening abortions, analogous to the viability line the Supreme Court attempted to draw in Roe v. Wade.

"

However the 1973 Roe v. Wade case created the well known trimester timetable, whereas the viability version of abortion law only came with the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey Supreme Court ruling. This is an important distinction in the legal precedent and history relevant to this article. I didn't want to just 'mess with' such a contentious article but I feel this is important enough to warrant change.

Mikcycle (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Roe recognized the right to terminate a pregnancy before viability as a constitutional right. Casey changed from the trimester timetable for how to draw the line. I'll add a simpler source and the quote from Casey later: "The woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy before viability is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade...We must justify the lines we draw...And there is no line other than viability which is more workable". Ben Azura (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)