Talk:Human Life Protection Act

Clarification needed
The act is related to "fetal heartbeat bills", but there is no mention in the article about the six weeks that other states are considering as deadline to perform abortions. Editors of this article, please clarify whether the six-week period is part of this act or not. If it is not, the act has little to do with "fetal heartbeat bills" and should be removed from the list at Heartbeat bill. Thanks! --Checco (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , the law is not a heartbeat bill, as there doesn't need to be a heartbeat before an abortion is illegal. --MrClog (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the link to the article on fetal heartbeat bills. SunCrow (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits and tags
I have just made some needed changes to the article. I noticed some POV in the word choice and the content; I believe the article is now more even-handed. Moving forward, editors should be mindful to keep an article on a controversial topic like this neutral.

I have tagged a few statements regarding the sex (and, in one instance, the race) of the legislators who voted on this bill. I don't see the information as relevant. Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because 1RR is in effect, I will not revert your reversion, but I strongly recommend restoring my edit and moving Trump Jr.'s reaction to the "Reaction" section, where it is most appropriate. The "Debate" section is not the "Reaction" section. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 22:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jay Coop, I respectfully disagree with you on this. If Trump Jr.'s comments related to the law itself, they would belong in the "reaction" section. They did not. Trump responded to the comments made by Rep. John Rogers during the debate on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives. That is why I put them in the debate section in the same paragraph that deals with Rogers's remarks. SunCrow (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump Jr.'s comments are off-topic for the section at hand. The "Debate" section should only include the remarks made by the state representative with no outsider comments. If it was a fellow state representative responding to Rogers' statement on the floor of the State House, that would be allowed, but Trump Jr. is not an Alabama state representative. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 03:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jay Coop, I hear you, but I see the matter differently. SunCrow (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed Don Jr.'s comment since it is not really very news worthy. I hope that will satisfy the concerns expressed here.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, but there are bigger issues with this article. SunCrow (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with "Reaction" section
The "Reaction" section has issues with balance and importance.

While it is fair to say that the overall reaction to the law has been negative, the section includes an exhaustive compilation of negative reactions. The reactions of pro-choice advocates such as Planned Parenthood are included, but there is no mention of reactions from pro-life advocates. The President's reaction to the law was mischaracterized (I edited it). The negative reactions of ten (10) Democratic presidential candidates are included (should we go whole hog and include comments from all 24?). There was only one positive reaction to the bill before I started editing; now, there are three. To put it mildly, there is a balance problem. The section leaves the impression that it was written by people who wanted to unload on the law.

A related problem is the inclusion of unimportant content. The section currently includes comments from an entertainment executive, three late-night TV hosts, and six entertainers. Worse yet, the comments by Colbert, Bee, and a person named Kacey Musgraves (who?) are vulgar. I don't think we have a tag for that, or I would have used it.

Honestly, it's a little ridiculous.

I recommend (a) that a more rounded cross-section of comments be included; (b) that all comments from advocates be removed; (c) that comments from the plethora of Democratic presidential candidates be condensed; and (d) that all comments from the entertainment industry be removed.

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Planned Parenthood reaction has been cited most widely. I agree with condensing the section and relying on WP:SECONDARY sources to establish WP:WEIGHT. But abortion will be a major issue in 2020 so I expect a lot of retrospective coverage on the Democrats' reactions to this bill. The advocates' comments are relevant and significant considering the articles Stop the Bans and You Know Me movement whose premises lie in great part on this bill. w umbolo   ^^^  11:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Taking into consideration the input from w umbolo , and seeing no responses from other editors, I have condensed the comments from Democratic presidential candidates and removed comments from the entertainment industry. I have also taken the liberty of condensing comments from Republicans somewhat. The comments from advocates are still in. SunCrow (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"Chinese Purges" should link to cultural revolution instead.
as it says above, the chinese purges part of the quote ought to link instead to the article on the cultural revolution instead. This is because while people died in the great leap forward and so on, the Cultural Revolution was much closer to a purge as I understand it, but if I am mistaken and they are referring to the great leap forward in the document, one can revert or talk with me here on why they think as such.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC) after a closer inspection of the documents, I missed that they indeed used the "great leap forward" specifically. my apologies, I have reverted it as such.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead
I removed the last sentence of the lead, per Roe v. Wade's overturn. 107.117.176.73 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)