Talk:Kay Ivey

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Kay Ivey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100316214044/http://www.sos.state.al.us/downloads/election/2002/AL-2002-General-Certification.pdf to http://www.sos.state.al.us/downloads/election/2002/AL-2002-General-Certification.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100316214643/http://www.sos.state.al.us/downloads/election/2006/general/certification-statewide-offices-12-29-2006.pdf to http://www.sos.state.al.us/downloads/election/2006/general/certification-statewide-offices-12-29-2006.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110723034037/http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-246125.htm to http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-246125.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Better picture
This picture should probably be used instead of the low quality picture currently being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvarado98 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A better picture would be fine, but it has to be freely licensed (see c:COM:LICENSING) or donated by the copyright owner according to the instructions at WP:DONATEIMAGE. clpo13(talk) 23:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * These photos are available for that purpose: https://www.flickr.com/photos/governorkayivey/ 2601:402:401:A580:D567:7306:DD97:BBEF (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Details about predecessor’s crimes in this lead
I disagree with this edit., which did the following:

This is the kind of detail that belongs only later in the BLP, if at all. Ivey has no involvement with that sex scandal, and putting it into the lead only insinuates that Alabama politicians like Bentley and Ivey are miscreants. Bentley allegedly used state resources to facilitate and conceal an extramarital affair with a former staffer, also violating campaign finance laws. Phrasing that in the most salacious way possible and jamming it into this lead is really inappropriate. If people want to learn details about Bentley, they can always go to his BLP.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * These aren't "details", it's a short, to the point, and pertinent description of WHY he resigned. And please don't even try to invoke BLP here. It's not a BLP issue.  Volunteer Marek   21:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Guilt by association sure is a BLP issue. It makes very little difference why he resigned, and such detail belongs later in this BLP if at all.  Ivey is not generally known as the governor who came after a sex scandal.  It’s undue weight, and you obviously inserted it because of the current Moore sex scandal.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, there's no "guilt by association" implied. But it is important to how she became governor. Ivey actually IS generally known as the governor who came after a sex scandal. Or at least was, until her Roy Moore remark a few days ago.  Volunteer Marek   22:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s not even in the body of this BLP, for good reason. This is a BLP about her, not him.  Likewise, I removed excessive detail about her father.. Also, Bentley didn’t resign because he had an affair; he resigned because allegedly he used state money to illegally cover it up.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't disagree that Gov. Bentley was careless at best; but that doesn't mean Ivey is a good pick either. When she took over the PACT she changed their top priority from helping children get educated to something else. She cancelled contracts and paid them off at the principal + current interest rate (very low at the time); even doing that she lost (or somebody lost) a fortune. Do we want her for Governor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.2.125 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding one more section to Election Results
Needs 2018 Gubernatorial election too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingWither (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2019 - Why - for a living semi-human - is there any limitation? Seems a little unprotected to me as a real human.
Simply - no protections should apply to those that unprotect. Radically unprotect. Simple, no? 2601:8A:402:E352:E44D:E284:DCE7:3EC3 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 00:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Abortion bill details
The edit I'd made, which was reversed, was about the issue that has brought this governor more to national attention than any other. My edit was well sourced. lvey's concurrence has been seen as extreme in all the print and broadcast media I've seen on it. She's also gotten the state into what predictably will be an involved, controversial and ultimately, very expensive court process by her signing the bill. Activist (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this talk page discussion. Since the material has been challenged, it should stay out until there is consensus here to include it. Now, you may well be right about the significance of Ivey's action, but this is already adequately covered in the article. Perhaps there should be an article about the legislation itself; that level of detail doesn't belong here. StAnselm (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the Ivey article about rape or incest, or the extraordinary criminalization of physicians for practicing medicine. The text I'd added was from the existing cited article, just an expansion of the story, but a pertinent one. This is the existing text, and this is the text that I added, which you removed is in italics, here:

On May 15, 2019, Ivey signed House Bill 314 into law, which bans abortion from November 2019, except in the cases where the mother's life is threatened or the baby may not survive. ''If a physician performs an abortion in violation of the law, they could be subject to getting a sentence of 99 years in prison. The law provided no exceptions in cases of pregnancy due to rape or incest. As the bill was debated, in opposing the bill, Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton said, "If you are going to allow a baby to be raped, or a father, or an uncle, or a cousin to have babies by their own family, you couldn't have been thinking this through."''
 * My explanation for my edit was precisely the same language you used to restore another editor's deletion to the Rhoda (biblical figure) article two days earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhoda_(biblical_figure)&diff=prev&oldid=897554660 You had previously autonomously restored that Rhoda material on April 11, 2019, and before that on April 25, 2018. My knowledge of New Testament scripture or theology is very limited, so I'm not commenting at all on the content, just on the process. In my opinion, there is little question that at minimum, the first two sentences I'd added which you deleted should certainly be included, while the third might be debatable. Activist (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this is off-topic to this discussion, so I will respond on your talk page. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't off topic at all. You can't make one assertion about retaining text in the Rhoda article while maintaining the completely opposite conclusion about why the palpably and demonstrably pertinent text you reverted from the Ivey article should not be restored. Your contention that the extremely more restrictive elements of the new law signed by Ivey should be kept from Wikipedia readers, although the prior less-restrictive Alabama statute was struck down last year, doesn't remotely begin to make sense. For another view, here's the reception encountered by the almost the identical situation next door in Mississippi, with the federal judge who had stricken down that state's 2018 law, hearing the challenge there yesterday. He asked the counsel for the state about its new, similar, but much more-restrictive state law; why they were defending this new law?:"Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed a law scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2019, that would ban abortions later than six weeks of pregnancy. The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law. Because of his decision last year finding the prior, less restrictive, '15-week' law in the Currier case to be unconstitutional, the judge inquired, 'Doesn't it boil down to six is less than fifteen?', with him commenting further that the new law 'smacks of defiance to this court.' Judge Carlton W. Reeves noted that although there were exceptions for situations where the mother's life or health is endangered should pregnancy be taken to term, the law does not allow for exceptions in the cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest." You've found no support for your contention. You may be making it in "good faith," but it's patently illogical. I'll drop the quote from the Minority Leader, but the particulars regarding the restrictions greater than those reversed last year, and the egregious, probably 8th Amendment, probably unconstitutional punishment in the new law, absolutely need to stay. Activist (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the Mississippi law isn't even mentioned on Governor Phil Bryant's page. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've tried to reason with the deleting editor, have provided substantial bases for inclusion of the pertinent facts involved, have tried to compromise, but the reverts continue. I feel like I've walked into the Monte Python Argument Clinic sketch and I suppose I should be thankful that I haven't been hit over the head with a mallet. Activist (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring. Per WP:BRD, your bold edit was reverted and you should wait until there is consensus before restoring it. Consider using WP:3O or WP:RfC instead. StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you're the edit warrior here. You've reverted my edits three times. No one has supported your rapid reverts. I've tried to reason with you here, and on my talk page, and on your talk page, and I've offered a compromise. What I've essentially gotten is "I don't like it, and there's nothing that will change my mind." The details of the signed bill, which is clearly an attempt to once again get even more unconstitutional legislation past the Supreme Court, are undeniably pertinent and should not be kept from Wikipedia readers, nor should Wikipedia be subject to censorship. Activist (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Contrariwise, nobody has supported your restorations. StAnselm (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article already says it goes against Roe v. Wade and is expected to be challenged. The details are irrelevant until it comes into effect, which it is extremely unlikely to do. If, however, this becomes the law that leads to Roe v. Wade being overturned it will become highly significant. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing irrelevant about the details, if that's what you actually believe. This is preposterous. Activist (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Human Life Protection Act article? It is quite extensive; that is where details like 99 year sentences belong. StAnselm (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To expect Wikipedia readers to go searching for an obscure article that would possibly satisfy your needs to revert these details from their proper article is absurd. Activist (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * More interesting is the long-time by the comments of Mississippi federal Judge Reeves about that state's apparent deliberate and intentional defiance of that court's precedential 2018 decision. I can't imagine that the long-time (16 years) MS Attorney General Jim Hood, who has the thankless task of again defending the MS legislature's extremist lawmaking, is happy about his situation. Activist (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be "searching for an obscure article", of course - they would be following the link in this article. Having the information in a different article is not censorship. StAnselm (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm referring this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Activist (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears you have also referred this to the same noticeboard. I wasn't able to see what either you or I had written, and you've failed to notify me of your action. Activist (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. And as I mentioned above, WP:3O or WP:RfC would have been better. StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with the wording of what has included into the article, but there is no doubt that this article should contain why the legislation, and particularly Ivey because of it, is seen as controversial. In particular we should say that the law is considered by many to be controversial because of elements like the 99 year prison sentence, rather than stating that fact without context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Currently the first sentence of the second paragraph regarding abortion is as follows: On May 15, 2019, Ivey signed House Bill 314 into law, which bans abortion from November 2019, except in the cases where the mother's life is threatened or the baby may not survive.

This should be changed to: On May 15 2019, Ivey signed House Bill 314 into law criminalising abortion from November 2019, except in the cases where the mother's life is threatened or the fetus may not survive, with prison sentences of up to 99 years.

I have bolded the different words and striked words to remove. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with this, but I'm still querying the 99 years bit. Is it more or less than life? Should it say "up to life"? The cited source says "punishable by life or 10 to 99 years in prison". It seems part of the reporting concerns the quirk of Alabama law that allows 99-year sentences. StAnselm (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not life, it's 99 years. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what the source says. StAnselm (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in. The cited source does say that a physician performing an abortion could be punished by a sentence of either "life" or from "10 to 99 years." The Alabama law specifies that a judge may deliver a sentence for a Class A felony: § 13A-5-6 (a) Sentences for felonies shall be for a definite term of imprisonment, which imprisonment includes hard labor, within the following limitations: (1) For a Class A felony, for life or not more than 99 years or less than 10 years." However, the bill also attracted international notoriety because it did not provide exceptions for rape or interest, a provision which all Alabama Democratic legislators and a small minority of Republicans wanted to be included. That's also in the source, and all the other sources I've seen which have not been cited. Activist (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What is not in the law does not need to be in this article. It already states clearly what the exceptions are. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Governor Kay Ivey.jpg

Truth vs Fiction
The ads saying Critical Race Theory is “Biden’s” is misleading to say the least. I used to respect the Governor, but not any more. Her ads are not only negative, but exaggeration bordering on lies. Shame shame shame 2600:387:F:4213:0:0:0:3 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We're dealing with an unusually nasty, even evil, politician here, and this article, while not exactly shying away from her more outrageous actions and statements, still presents too much of a false balance for the sake of 'neutrality'. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Death penalty section
I've replaced this section a couple times after an editor removed it stating the case was still before the courts. However, the one-sentence section is backed up only with two opinion pieces. Is it possible for editors to flesh this out with some additional references that aren't op-ed pieces? Otherwise, I'd say this section could be removed for lack of actual sourcing on the subject's views. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * After doing some poking around of my own, I can't really find any specifics on Ivey's stance on the death penalty, and with only the two op-ed pieces in place, the line we have in here still remains rather tangential. I'm going to remove it for now, and encourage regular editors here to find some better sourcing on her overall stance beyond this one incidence. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)