Talk:North Dakota HB 1572

First
Neither source provided has supported the phrasing in the article. The article said This is the first such legislation designed as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. The CNBC citation said, quoting the VP of American Life League, "North Dakota -- which has the chance to become the first state to protect the rights of all its citizens from their biological beginning." The article said nothing else that would support the claim in the article. The old citation said "North Dakota Personhood Bill Passes, First in US History" in the title, but didn't discuss "first" anywhere outside of the title. The sentence implies that it is the first legislation designed to challenge Roe v. Wade, which isn't true. With these citations, we could say "This is the first time a bill associated with giving rights to embryos and fetuses has passed." If we had another citation, we may even be able to say "This bill was designed to eventually be a challenge to Roe v. Wade" but I haven't seen any evidence in the citations regarding the design of the bill. But when the two ideas are mixed together, it is worded poorly where multiple inaccurate meanings could be derived. -Andrew c [talk] 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Move
The title is awkward. The title of the bill is "The Personhood of Children Act". 128.146.46.2 (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure that's the one in Montana. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate what the official name is, and then the page should be moved there, with North Dakota HB 1572 and possibly other variations of that as redirects.--Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://personhoodnorthdakota.com/ 75.118.170.35 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so "The Personhood of Children Act"? I hate that title because of the bias, but if that's what it is...  First find it from a neutral source.  --Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/22733892.html
 * http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43109
 * 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never heard of Standard Newswire, it looks like a right wing blog. CNS, I know for a fact, is a biased right wing site.  So request denied.  --Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/19-5
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
 * http://bioethics.com/?p=6088#comment-200139
 * http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25076520-5012755,00.html

128.146.46.2 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Before it's done, is it The Personhood of Children Act or do we need to specify something more specific in the title in addition, for instance The Personhood of Children Act (North Dakota) or The Personhood of Chilren Act (ND HB 1572)? --Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(undenting) I think "The Personhood of Children Act of 2009" or some such would work. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)