Talk:Roe v. Wade/Archive 3

Challenge of First Paragraph's Penultimate Claim
"During the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.[4]" Footnote [4] refers one to Chemerinsky (2015), §10.3.3.1 (quoting Roe, 410 U.S. at 164).

This appears to be a long-time misunderstanding from a selective excerpting of Roe v. Wade. Roe and subsequent decisions clearly state other requirements for proscribing abortion. Section XI(1)(c) of Roe reads: "(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. "

"Health" was defined broadly to include medical, psychological, and emotional aspects, as related rulings of 1973 showed, making it de facto impossible to proscribe abortion even in the third trimester.

I leave it to the skill and integrity of more experienced editors to cite Roe directly rather than a misleading secondary source. Ray921 (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's fine as it is. Calling Chemerinsky a "misleading secondary source" is laughable. We prefer secondary sources on Wikipedia (see WP:PSTS).  White Whirlwind  咨   16:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. When I wrote my comment, the words "or health" did not appear in the alleged citation from Chemerinsky.  I'm pleased it was added in the interim to improve the accuracy of the article, but the article is still misleading about the ruling in Roe v. Wade since it fails to indicate how broadly Roe required health to be interpreted.


 * Finally, since I haven't consulted Chemerinsky to see what he writes in his text (though I linked to the primary source on line), I should have been more careful to disparage the previous omission of the words "or health" as required exceptions in Roe during the third trimester. It was not I who cited Chemerinsky while omitting the words "or health."  While I recognize there are many cases in which secondary sources may be preferable to primary sources for arriving at truth (especially in science when our knowledge is growing)Ray921 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC), when a primary source is the item under discussion, properly citing the primary source should not be deprecated out of hand. Ray921 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The lead simply omitted the "or health" words, it's a minor fix. Chemerinsky is a major work in the field, I can't imagine why anyone might object to citing him here. If you have a problem with Wikipedia source policy, you're free to take it up over at the talk page of my earlier link.  White Whirlwind  咨   07:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Google Search Description uses subjective language
The Google search description for the Roe v. Wade wikipedia page reads "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States allows a pregnant woman to murder her child without government restriction." The use of the words "allow," "murder," and "child" are both highly subjective and do not reflect the actual wording of the ruling. I petition that this be changed to state something along the lines of "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction," which is the first sentence in the article. This better reflects the more objective reality of the ruling.
 * Wikipedia has no control over the Google algorithm. The current Google Search description is the result of recent vandalism to this article. The vandalism was reverted on Wikipedia, but Google has not yet updated their search result description to reflect the current state of the article. You'll either have to wait for google to update their description or contact Google directly to request that they do so if you do not want to wait. There is nothing Wikipedia editors can do about it. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

is this public domain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DT-pxEGfu4 Victor Grigas (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As a work of the federal US government, it should meet the requirements for public domain. I am not a lawyer, however. Elizium23 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020
Please change * Audio of oral argument at www.oyez.org to * Audio of oral argument at www.oyez.org because the old link is outdated and leads to a 404 error. Qwert9988 (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Dylsss (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020
Change the photo! Vandalism Guevremonster (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Include more of Nixon's quote..
I would like to see more of the quote for citation [138] included in the text. I recommend "abortion is necessary ...when there is a black and a white ... or a rape." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.52.25 (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The news story lacks context, and while it appears to paint Nixon as a racist for saying that, it does not explain the quote, and so I would oppose using more of it due to lack of analysis. Elizium23 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Roe v wade is no more
My edit was overturned when the facts are staring us right in the face...

It's done and we need to update it

They are literally going to start activating immediate bans

It's pre 1973 all over again Evansturtecky18 (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the Texas law that became effective on September 1, I believe the SCOTUS hasn't yet decided whether to grant the emergency stay, so it's premature to say they "let it stand". In addition, as someone mentioned when undoing another edit, recent developments likely belong in Abortion in the United States. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Well...we can wait and see what scotus says but I really just think it's already been said what the outcome is gonna be and others are saying it to. But I understand I just...I have the mindset as severel others

I'm not trying to argue but Evansturtecky18 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It will be a domino effect Evansturtecky18 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Overruled?
I reverted F's addition. I don't think "overruled" is accurate, or NPOV. Furthermore, only quoting from the dissent is obviously unbalanced William M. Connolley (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This was the correct call. Previous court decisions are not "overruled" when the SCOTUS decides not to block a state law with only a surface-level connection to a previous SCOTUS ruling. Incerto501 (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A better word might be "circumvented". BD2412  T 01:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Texas law does not ban abortions-
The Texas law does not "ban" abortions as the text states. That is categorically false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factmaster20000 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The law is described by multiple reliable sources as a 'ban'. I agree that their are nuances that make the label non-ideal, but it's plainly a ban in effect. Going into more detail in this article is unnecessary, but we might get more detailed in the article (if one is created) about this law/court case. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Need to change | References
Reference number 43 does not exist, im new user and i cant edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feemow (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for calling attention to this. I believe the situation is now fixed. The source (a Washington Post article) does exist, but it was improperly cited here. Also, the quote in the body text was not fully presented in the Washington Post source. I have added an LA Times source that does have the full quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of pronunciation and AKAs
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roe_v._Wade&diff=1047679333&oldid=1045119662 removed that text, calling it "unnecessary" with no explanation. In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roe_v._Wade&diff=1047789792&oldid=1047679333, I reverted, asking for elaboration of the reasons and or discussion on the talk page. In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roe_v._Wade&diff=1047840089&oldid=1047789792, someone else removed it again, still with no explanation of the reasons other than agreeing with the first removal, and asking me instead to justify keeping it. This feels to me like shifting the burden of proof, as there never was an explanation of the first change to begin with. Can someone point me to background material discussing who has to justify what when? (I will happily discuss my reasons if established standards, preferably more solid than custom or personal habit, back that up. It doesn't seem to mesh with revert bursts I've seen before.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any specific guidelines that demanded that course of action. I assumed that 's request that you justify it was simply based on the strangeness of the position you were taking.  White Whirlwind   06:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for any of the prior reverters, but I support removal and think "unnecessary" just about covers it. Roe and Wade have pronunciations that are readily apparent from their spelling. "v." meaning versus is common, as is saying "vee" when it comes to legal cases, and anyone unfamiliar with those is likely to read it as "vee" anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

October 3, 2021 edit request
The last full paragraph needs to have the following sentence added to it: "In September 2021, the Supreme Court announced that arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization will be heard on 1 December, 2021". 2601:1C0:5201:BEA0:99FD:E5EE:8D04:ABF0 (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This would probably violate our guideline that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  White Whirlwind   06:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sentence in "Holding" box
In the holding box on the right of the article, there's a sentence I think is OR/unconfirmed.
 * "Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated this right."

I don't see a source for this claim (that the recent Texan law violated the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade). The sentence is subjective and I think we should wait for the SCOTUS ruling to say whether or not the Texan law violates right to privacy. Unfamiliar readers might think that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, when it hasn't. I5-X600K (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * We should remove it. The Texas law and its effects on Roe are not a part of the summary of the case's holding. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Disagree. That language was already present in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roe_v._Wade&oldid=847590198 (2018), so it can't be the 2021 law. But the ambiguity should be fixed. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The "Texas law" referenced in the holding sentence is the original one the Court's ruling struck down in 1973, not the 2021 one in the news currently. I wouldn't have thought any rational reader could have thought it was the latter.  White Whirlwind   23:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * At least one and maybe two participants in this discussion did, and WP:AGF and or WP:NPA, as I understand them, bar me from speculating about their rationality or any other reader's or editor's. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry about that. But in my defense, how in the world could the Court's decision have held invalid a law from 38 years in the future?  White Whirlwind   05:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was very wrong. Do we have an "irrational reader" userbox? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming "we" in your question includes me, I have no idea what you mean by "irrational reader" userbox or how knowing the answer to that would help. Can you elaborate? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm poking some fun at myself for the mix-up. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I see I misinterpreted the box, perhaps we should clarify this? I assume there is a lot more traffic now after SB8 and while reading over the box it seems pretty clear, I still think some readers could get the wrong idea. Once I get more time I intend to add the name of the texas statutes (pre Roe v. Wade) to clarify, since the article (and the case it seems) don't name them. I5-X600K (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Clarity is good. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not confident the final Holdings sentence is accurate. Was an "assist a woman" law really the focus of the case? The decision prominently found multiple state abortion criminal laws to be unconstitutional. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not going to read the whole 60+ pages, but the syllabus mentions a physician (Hallford) prosecuted on 2 counts of performing abortions (I don't know in which state) was allowed to intervene. The Held section of the syllabus includes "2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not." So I think not the focus at the SCOTUS level, but probably part of it in lowe courts, based on "A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies." earlier in the syllabus. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a bit imprecise. The Court talked about the Texas law making it illegal to "procure an abortion". The law actually made it illegal to "designedly administer to a pregnant woman or knowingly procure to be administered with her consent any drug or medicine, or shall use towards her any violence or means whatever externally or internally applied, and thereby procure an abortion...." (The original law is reproduced in footnote 1 of the majority opinion.) So while the holding sentence may be technically correct, I think it would be better to speak of "procure an abortion"? How does that sound?  White Whirlwind   05:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I would say "laws" plural. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Supreme Court decision
Add the following towards the end of the paragraph, "The ruling has helped shaped America in legalizing abortion throughout the nation." Shanyn Lim2600:6C50:7F7F:DEB0:F54B:ECB8:2E7C:4F8 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021
On first page in the summary, change th label “overruled” over Planned Parenthood v. Casey to “limited by” or “modified by” as the word overruled means the later court negated all the relevant holdings of the prior case.

Casey does not negate all of Roe. For example, todayin Dobbs, SCITUS will hear arguments attacking Roe’s trimester and viability framework for analysis. The would need to be litigated now if they were overruled in Casey in 1992.

‘Modified’ is a better choice from a legal usage POV, but limited is also an arguable signal term choice.

overruled, however, is inaccurate. 174.251.65.170 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Overruled is the infobox parameter. The information below makes it clear that it was partially overruled. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Presidential positions section
The article states,

“A central point of Kavanaugh's appointment hearings was his stance on Roe v. Wade, of which he said to Senator Susan Collins that he would not "overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided".”

This is a dishonest reading of Kavanaugh. Justice Kavanaugh told Susan Collins that five justices believing an established precedent was wrongly decided, by itself, would not be a ‘’’sufficient’’’ reason for overturning it (per the hit piece linked). He did not say he wouldn’t do it under any circumstances, nor did he commit to ruling one way or the other on Roe (or any other decision). The bit about Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt is pure speculation, and the entire paragraph should be removed as the section is supposed to be about what presidents have said about Roe (not attempting to predict where the current justices will come down). 142.165.85.117 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. Regardless of whether it was dishonest, it was certainly of little direct relevance to Trump's presidential position.  White Whirlwind   01:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: misplaced sentence
The sentence "In 2005, she asked the Supreme Court to review the 1973 ruling, arguing that the case should be heard again due to new evidence about the harm the procedure inflicts on women, but the petition was denied." is incorrectly placed under "Activities of Sarah Weddington." It belongs under "Activities of Norma McCorvey."


 * Was already in the McCorvey section, removed it from the Weddingtin section as McCorvey v. Hill doesn't mention them as party or counsel. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Roe v. Wade
The Wikipedia article on Roe v. Wade contains at least two errors. The article incorrectly states that Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President John F. Kennedy. That is wrong. Thurgood Marshall was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967. Also, the article states that Harry Blackmun was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Dwight David Eisenhower. This is incorrect. Harry Blackmun was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in 1970.8.30.181.112 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)8.30.181.112 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC).
 * , since you've been doing a lot of work on the presidential section you may want to fix these.  White Whirlwind   00:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for going through it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Rape claim
In this article is written "Rape" is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in the case. However, as a person living outside the United States and unfamiliar with the realities there, I would like to know another fact (also with regard to the planned translation into another language version of Wikipedia) and source for it. Was that claim of rape in some form known to the public at the time of court proceedings? Was it known at the time of court proceedings that Norma McCorvey had identified black people as perpetrators of alleged rape? Or did the rape claim come to light when Norma McCorvey revealed her identity? --185.17.212.193 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You should probably ask on Reference_desk. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about the rape claim section. It is written in difficult English even for native speakers. I tried to improve it yesterday; there are sources written at different times in the past decades that do not all agree with each other about what happened. "Rape" is in fact mentioned in the judicial opinions. it is possible to make an argument in an academic paper the judges would have decided everything the same way no matter what happened.
 * --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Both McCorvey and Weddington made public statements after Roe concerning rape that were untrue. The current wording the article is better now and this should be clear to a careful reader. It seems that the judges may not have known about the rape claim. But to really know this for sure one would have to go through the justices' papers. Burger's papers are not available to the public until 10 years after O'Connor (the last surviving Burger Court member) dies. So until then your question must be answered with some uncertainty.


 * The rape claim was significant in shaping public opinion towards the case in the 1980s. Not included in the article is the race of the fabricated rapists. There is some material indicating a racial element in the rape lie. Since 1987, there became an urban legend that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe based on McCorvey's confession about lying about rape. McCorvey's 1998 testimony before the Senate subcommittee fed into this. The material now in the article should help people resolve questions if they know about the urban legend.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bold text
 * I just looked over your "False rape claim" section for the first time and would like to voice some concerns. First, it's mostly a series of separate sentences with line breaks after each one, rather than organized encyclopedic prose. Second, I fear that most of the section is WP:Original research. In my opinion, you should find a reliable secondary source(s) that addresses the topic or else delete the content.  White Whirlwind   20:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The major secondary source I relied on is Of causes and clients: Two tales of roe v. Wade. At one point I planned to add this source to the article, but never got around to it. The false rape claim is also discussed on Rape Wasn’t Part of Roe Decision. The difficulty with using this source is it repeats Weddington's lie that she never "touched the issue of rape". The truth is somewhere in between her quote, and the claim of the urban legend that the Roe decision was based on a false rape claim. It is possible to find various news type sources online which repeat the urban legend as if it is the truth.


 * The topic is discussed in some detail in the book by Weddington and the two books by McCorvery. To my best knowledge without double-checking, two of them discuss the original rape claim, and one of them discusses the media controversy. By the time all three books were written, the public controversy over it already happened.


 * Maybe this section should be be spun-off as its own article. It really isn't that pertinent to Roe v. Wade as a case, but due to the popular spread of the urban legend, it seems that ordinary Americans will be looking to read up about it.


 * Any treatment of this on Wikipedia needs to get the story straight. This is a tentative list misconceptions surrounding the rape claim, in chronological order: (I may be omitting one or two others that are not discussed in the article.)


 * 1. Women in McCorvey's apartment tell McCorvey that you can get an abortion if you are raped (true, but not part of the law)
 * 2. McCorvey lies
 * 3. McCorvey mistakenly thinks the verdict was based on the rape claim
 * 4. McCorvey lies elaborately to Shearer, tens of millions of Americans read Parade
 * 5. McCorvey admits lie, but falsely claims it was to find a loophole in Texas law (Later on she described her actual motive for claiming to be raped in I am Roe.)
 * 6. Weddington lies that she "never touched the issue of rape"
 * 7. McCorvey wrongly tells the Senate about the affidavit; the rape claim was not actually part of it. She is pretending to know what is in the affidavit when she does not know.


 * I moved it to the McCorvey article, it could go there; if you disapprove, revert and we can work it out. I added a brief mention of the public statements in the McCorvey section of this article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted that addition to the McCorvey article with this description: "Reverted good faith WP:GF addition of a large amount of Original Research WP:OR sourced to primary sources and documents hosted on an advocacy's organization's website: "American's United for Life" - aul.org. This section could exist, but should be MUCH smaller (not UNDUEly large) and sourced ONLY to newspapers (secondary sources.))" --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean McCorvey's sworn affidavit from the 2003 legal challenge? It is a court document, not something American's United for Life created. Just a document is hosted by an advocacy organization does not mean it can't be used. Similarly, the oral argument text is from Roe court records. A similar text is hosted by oyez, but due to how oyez formats it, it can't be linked to directly.


 * McCorvey's books were co-authored and were not self published. They are written in an autobiographical tone, but should count as secondary sources because of this.


 * I am opening a discussion at Talk:Norma McCorvey to work on this more. Earlier I did not mention my reliance on Jane Roe Gone Rogue: Norma McCorvey’s Transformation as a Symbol of the U.S. Abortion Debate, an MA thesis by Christianna K. Barnard from Sarah Lawrence College.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for recent edits
, you are not following Consensus; you have removed both secondary-sourced material (and primary sources which are cited by secondary-sourced material located nearby in the article.) A small portion of the removed material had been in the article for years. You should self-revert your recent edits and discuss specific concerns on this talk page. Earlier, White whirlwind discussed an issue with Talk:Roe v. Wade and I think my supsequent edits was what White whirlwind was looking for. I encourage you to imitate this practice. Claiming OR in an edit summary is not enough; for this to be accepted, you need to substantiate it via a talk page discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * List of some of Avatar317's recent edit summaries:
 * Removed HUGE amount of IRRELEVANT Original Research. WP:OR This article is about "Roe v Wade" and unless a source talks about RvW or includes some of this history in its discussion of RvW, than all of this is disallowed WP:OR. You can add this info to the articles on the presidents themselves, or in the history section of Abortion in the United States.
 * History of abortion laws in the United States: Removed OR sourced to PRIMARY source.

‎:* History of abortion laws in the United States: Removed IRRELEVANT Original Research. WP:OR. Unless a source says that Hawaii's abortion laws had some influence on RvW, than this is OR. This could be used in the History section in the Abortion in the United States article.
 * History of the case: Removed statement sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to choose which parts of a court ruling are important enough to include and which not, that is for legal scholars, which is why we use secondary sources. WP:SECONDARY

‎:* Demographic effects and opinion polls: Removed Original Research WP:OR.
 * Demographic effects and opinion polls: Removed statement sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to choose which parts of a court ruling are important enough to include and which not, that is for legal scholars, which is why we use secondary sources. WP:SECONDARY
 * Demographic effects and opinion polls: Removed IRRELEVANT statements not talking about RvW, sourced to PRIMARY WP:PRIMARY sources.
 * The overall problem with Avatar317's editing pattern is that just because a primary source is used, does not mean it isn't covered in a secondary in a nearby reference. This manner of citing was used in the article well before I improved it. What Avatar317 claims is irrelevant, actually is relevant, and there are sources which were already in the article demonstrating relevance. For example, the 1937 change in Puerto Rico's abortion law (to allow more abortions) predated Roe v. Wade by over 30 years, and also predated the states which changed their laws starting in the late 60s. The discussion of Puerto Rico's law and of also of Roe was in the journal article which was cited. So the edit summary saying "IRRELEVANT Original Research" is incorrect.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent sizable content removals

 * Avatar317; you have been removing a sizable chunk of content (difs: ,).

This ping is mainly to get your collective feedback on what the other three of you think of it; since you have been editing the article or talk page over the last month since I started working on it. Avatar317 cites OR, but I would like to see if you (collectively) have a consensus either for or against the disputed content for the reason cited in this particular complaint (OR) or for any other reasons.

This (Content_removal) states that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus. I disagree with Avatar317's approach to the contrary. I also think that enough other editors have been a part of things for there to be a consensus one way or another.

I had often enough omitted some of the duplicate secondary sources for the information and cited it only to the primary source in order to have a more concise reference format.

I am able to go back through it and compile the secondary sources which I originally used and add secondary sources to the references if this will satisfy Avatar317. Of course, some of the removed sources were already suitable secondary sources. In the meantime, I think the content in the Demographic effects and opinion polls and the Presidential positions sections should be restored.

As for presidents' positions to be relevant, it is enough that the secondary source discusses either abortion or population control, since these were both major and overt aspects of Roe v. Wade from 1970–1973. For some of the pre-Roe presidents, the sources also discuss Roe v. Wade itself.

Some of the removed Nixon content was there before I started editing the article. In addition, this article's more ancient edit history indicates that in the past, it discussed the death of President Johnson later on the same date which the Roe decision was released. (There was even a newspaper headline photo of it.) Also, Sarah Weddington reflected on it in A Question of Choice.

Avatar317, I invite you to suggest a timeframe for me to complete the secondary sourcing by. If I can't fix the referencing with a secondary source by a certain time, I am willing to re-eliminate that portion of the currently-disputed content myself. I disagree with your edit summary comment; the content does not strictly belong in other articles. If that was my intention I would have written it differently. Rather, I compiled it for this article, it is more concise and with a narrower scope than I would for a more general article's section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * We should discuss this in more detail. My concerns with the "Presidential positions" section are WP:UNDUE in nature. I'm sure presidents' positions on Roe is worthy of coverage, I just don't know how much. This is not an easy article to edit, but we really need to do our best with it.  White Whirlwind   07:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that Presidents' positions on the subject of this article = the court decision Roe, and whether it should stand or be overturned is covered in Reliable Sources. But Presidents' views on Abortion in general is not relevant to this article, and thus I think some of what remains in that section should be trimmed.--- Avatar317 (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * With Avatar317's standard for the Presidents' positions, Nixon must be omitted, since Nixon did not comment publicly about Roe v. Wade. Yet his Presidential Commission was a significant event to the case. That the justices he appointed both voted for Roe and dissented is also significant; readers might want some background on him. Currently the article has a hole in it because Nixon is missing.


 * To fix the hole, there could be a subsection for === Overview of presidents who appointed the justices ===; this would be in the current background section. This would omit Teddy Roosevelt and Warren Harding, but cover the others as candidates and/or administrations. Any primary sources used would require a secondary source discussing either overpopulation, population control, or abortion in the same reference.


 * This would complement the existing background section, since the 1937 liberalization of Puerto Rico's abortion law under FDR's administration predated any of the individual state liberalizations. It would also help readers understand that abortion and population control were not merely state issues prior to Roe v. Wade's federalizing. The current === History of abortion laws in the United States === gives the impression it was only a state issue.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to still not understand the OR policy. Please re-read it: WP:OR. Articles are not built on what YOU think belongs or would inform a reader. "readers might want some background" is NOT allowed by policy as a reason to put content in articles. For example, unless a source comments that it is important to the RvW decision that X president appointed Justice Y, than that info is IRRELEVANT; AND, if a source talks about it, than you can only use that source's discussion of the topic in this article.--- Avatar317 (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you are interpreting the rules inconsistently with how they have been used in the past by other editors in the article, or with other things in the article you did not remove on the basis of a fault you found. Two examples: (The first example led me to consider two tangents, so I wrote two more paragraphs to discuss them)


 * You deleted other things because at least one of the sources substantiating it was primary, but you left Bill Clinton's position on abortion sourced to "Clinton, Bill. My Life, p. 229 (Knopf 2004)."--which is a non co-authored autobiography. Likewise Gerald Ford's position on abortion is sourced to "Ford, Gerald. Letter to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, published online by The American Presidency Project. Santa Barbara: University of California Press (September 10, 1976)."


 * Page 229 says: "I thought then, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is the most difficult of all judicial decisions. Whatever they decided, the Court had to play God. Everyone knows that life begins biologically at conception... I thought then and still believe that the Court reach the right conclusion..." The article correctly says that Clinton supported Roe, but as he supported the decision, Clinton also said "Everyone knows that life begins biologically at conception" which doesn't quite sound the same as Roe: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus..." Philosophy and theology are likely not talking about biology, but those in the discipline of medicine are. Clinton's argument that Roe was the correct decision was a philosophical argument about the moment of humanity (or ensoulment for the religious) and a political argument discussing Prohibition, which is well known to have had unintended consequences. Even if the autobiography is not a good source for the article, the article should avoid giving the readers a false impression that Clinton is saying something he doesn't.


 * Likewise, for Ford, sources such as the NY Times seem to indicate a changing in his position on abortion later in life. (The primary source states, "I have consistently opposed the 1973 decision of the .Supreme Court."; the later nytimes sources states "Of the resolution that did pass, which denounces late-term abortions, he said, 'I don't agree with that either.'") Maybe the article should somehow cover his change in position as it does for Bush and Biden.


 * The RvW decision, for the United States, is closely tied to the discussion of abortion, population control and overpopulation. WP:BLUE is not original research. Discussion of these topics on Roe v. Wade counts as WP:BLUE. Prior to when I edited the article, there was discussion of poll results for abortion, not Roe v. Wade. Previous articles understood that readers about Roe v. Wade wanted to know about abortion. I summarized the dated poll content, but in the summary retained the previous references for Gallup and Pew. These references do not mention Roe v. Wade, but WP:BLUE applies so they don't need to.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Minor error in final paragraph
My account isn't able to edit a semi-protected page, but believe there is an error in the final paragraph.

Discussion of the polling contains the sentence, "In 2021, the ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 58% of those without children in their house wanted to see Roe v. Wade upheld, compared to 62% of non-parents." (my bold).

This does not make sense and does not match the source data. A simple change to 'with', would fix it, although it would be more accurate to change it to "In 2021, the ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 58% of those with children living at home wanted to see Roe v Wade upheld, compared to 62% of without children at home." The crosstab breakdown means that the 62% could include parents whose children have left home, or whose children reside with another partner.

Pedanticmariner (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I'll fix my mistake here. The edit I'll make soon does not indicate any opinion one way or the other about any of the edits since I last edited.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Error" in the second paragraph
The last sentence of the second paragraph states: "Texas then appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Though I don't have edit permission, I believe this is incomplete, if not wrong.

U.S. Reports: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, p. 113 clearly shows: "Appellants [i.e. Roe] directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee [i.e. Texas] cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hailford"

It might provide a better understanding if both appeals are mentioned, or at least the one from Roe.

Csheep (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * While your point appears to be true, I don't think this is a worthwhile edit. The district court's denial of Roe's injunction request isn't mentioned in the lead, so changing it to "both parties appealed to the Supreme Court" would be equally confusing.  White Whirlwind   02:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , Hallford's involvement in the case is a hole in the article which could be filled. Also, the cross-appeal could be described in detail somewhere the main part of the article itself. I am not sure about mentioning it in the lead, but would rather see it covered in the main part of the article before deciding whether it belongs in the lead or not.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization § Supreme Court Leaks
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization § Supreme Court Leaks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022
Supreme Court repealed it last night 5-4 decision 71.173.64.65 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not yet, that was only a leaked draft opinion. The final decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has not yet been read. Endwise (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022 (2)
change 1974 World Population Conference in Bucharest, Hungary to 1974 World Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania DanielCozma (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 abortion protests in the United States
Page watchers are invited to help expand the newly created 2022 abortion protests in the United States. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

History of the case - edit
I'm not sure why the first three sections of this section are so editorial and incorrect.

-Sarah Weddington was not persuaded by Linda Coffee after listening to her give a speech, the woman and husband were (which is what the source that is linked says)

-Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee were classmates and Sarah asked Linda for help because of Linda's experience clerking in a federal court

??? - But one lawsuit was not enough, since they wanted to go forum shopping to improve their chances of winning in court. - ???

Their initial plaintiff wasn't pregnant and so the lawsuit was at risk of not having standing so they ended up with two, they filed both in the hopes that one of them would end up being heard by Sarah T. Hughes, a fact that should just be included at the top rather.

_____________

At first she was unsuccessful in finding a suitable pregnant woman. In June 1969, 21-year-old Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child.

Ordinarily, lawyers are not allowed to directly solicit clients without any prior relationship, but McCorvey's situation qualified for a loophole in the no solicitation rule which allows lawyers to solicit new clients for public interest cases. ''McCorvey asked if she had what was needed to be part of the Weddington and Coffee's lawsuit. She was told, "Yes. You're white. You're young, pregnant, and you want an abortion."''

The italicized portions would appear to be linked, but Weddington's problem was that the women she was meeting already had the money for an abortion, so the issue of the the client actually being pregnant for standing remained. It is also what McCorvey claimed she was told, which is an important distinction when the affadavit was signed in 2003, over 30 years after the fact.

____________

The lawyers asked McCorvey if she thought abortion should be legal. McCorvey said she didn't know. Weddington told her, "It's just a piece of tissue. You just missed your period." This convinced McCorvey that abortion should be legal.[38] She agreed to let them represent her under the impression that she would be able to eventually get a legal abortion.[39] She smoked an illegal drug and drank wine so she wouldn't have to think about her pregnancy.[40]

^^This entire section is again what McCorvey claims. Including her claims is fine, stating it as if it is what happened is not. Regardless, can't most of her claims from her book & 2003 affadavit just go in the Later responses by those involved section?

_________ --Greenbilli (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Graph formerly on this article
I nominated the graph formerly on this article for deletion, see ; specifically it conflates figures for two separate polls without indicating this to the reader.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Remove gratuitous negative comments about Justice Douglas' personal life?
The caption under the photo of Justice Douglas reads more like an attempt to discredit Douglas than it does an attempt to make the subject of the article better understood.

"Justice Douglas with his family on Christmas Eve, 1939. His wife divorced him in 1952 and his private life involved repeated drinking and womanizing during the 1960s and 1970s prior to his retirement."

It seems the second sentence should be removed. It doesn't seem useful to raise topics such as divorce, drinking, or "womanizing" about one of the justices involved in this case.

Wikid2021 (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅. Good catch. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it was gratuitous; reliable sources associate Douglas's stance on abortion to his private sexual behavior. He lived (or tried to give the impression of living through embellished stories) both a radical lifestyle and had a reputation as the liberal radical on the Court.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the kind of thing that should be explained in the article text, with citations of sources that make that analysis. For now, removing the unsourced caption language was the right call. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand; note that I just removed the picture; since it was from 1939 it doesn't really fit with the article much without the extended caption.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Change to Holding summary needed
The last line of the holding summary is opinion, and not neutral. No court has found the Texas law in question to violate any right. Kauboy9816 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed it to say that the law "was enjoined". This is a significant distinction because it relates to the power of the courts; the Supreme Court can decide between parties, but it cannot change the law based on this. Rather it enjoins laws, that is it prevents their enforcement on the basis of rights.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

But the Supreme Court did not enjoin the Texas law, and it still stands in effect. Kauboy9816 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Texas law was not part of the holding in this case. The mention would not belong in the summary of the holding. Kauboy9816 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the last line to more closely follow the text of the holding. Now it says, "State criminal abortion laws which only have an exception for a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf are unconstitutional." I wonder if you overlooked the mention of Texas law. The syllabus says,

"'3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that...' and 'It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional'."


 * The summary at 100 and following says:
 * / To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, ... is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights ... Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. ... Although the District Court granted appellant Roe declaratory relief, it stopped short of issuing an injunction against enforcement of the Texas statutes. The Court has recognized that different considerations enter into a federal court's decision as to declaratory relief, on the one hand, and injunctive relief, on the other ... We find it unnecessary to decide whether the District Court erred in withholding injunctive relief, for we assume the Texas prosecutorial authorities will give full credence to this decision that the present criminal abortion statutes of that State are unconstitutional. ... The judgment of the District Court as to intervenor Hallford is reversed, and Dr. Hallford's complaint in intervention is dismissed. In all other respects, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed..


 * Looking at it again, it seems that the summary box doesn't really give enough space to summarize the holding well; it is really just a summary of "3. State criminal...". If you or anyone else wants to re-write the holding summary it seems like it could be improved. I may not be the right person to do that, though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I did miss the mention, and appreciate your pointing it out. The new summary appears to be more appropriate now, and I agree the space is very limiting. Kauboy9816 (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , ; Avatar317 changed "State criminal abortion laws which only have an exception for a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf are unconstitutional." to "The Texas law making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right.", with this edit summary: "Undid revision 1086599582 by Epiphyllumlover (talk)Reverted Original Research WP:OR. We follow WP:SECONDARY sources, we don't interpret WP:PRIMARY sources say." I disagree that this is original research, even if it does rely on a primary source. The text it relies on is "State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy."
 * --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the last line could be inaccurate or non-neutral. Although it may not be perfect, I think the line's current form—(The Texas law making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right.)—is acceptable. The assertion that "no court has found the Texas law in question to violate any right" is nonsensical. That was the Court's final holding in the case. There's even a block quote of it in the article.  White Whirlwind   03:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * WhiteWhirlwind, as it is now, the summary is unsourced and is summarized straight from Roe's holding itself. I am fine with that, but Avatar objected to using a primary source. What do you think should be done? With neutrality, the problem with "violated that right" is that putting it this way infers that the right to privacy is absolute instead of qualified, contrary to the preceding sentence. A better way to end the sentence is to say the Texas law "did not properly balance the rights" or "did not properly balance the rights, making it unconstitutional". In addition, a casual reader could get a perception that the summary is non-neutral if it is read as a summary of the article, rather then the decision, especially if the reader is not familiar with reading other court case infoboxes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Most of our current infobox holding summaries aren't sourced. If Avatar wants to change that, it'll be a big change. Also, it surprises me that any casual reader might interpret the holding section that way. Let's not change anything yet without further discussion and a survey of some good sources.  White Whirlwind   23:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A summary of multiple holdings in Roe are listed and interpreted in this paper: Most case articles probably don't have any secondary sources summarizing the holdings.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In my experience info boxes are not sourced...and if something needs sources one has to wonder if it belongs in the infobox. In this case I don't believe that the above source is acceptable and the wording re the Texas legislation left unsourced becomes OR.  It should be removed.  Sectionworker (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that you suggest removing it, it reminds me that several law journal papers, including the one above, say there are some questions what the holding is. And the answer to the questions could become part of the Dobbs ruling. I think it should be removed (as you just did) until Dobbs is issued, and then if Dobbs says the central holding is something particular, it should be changed to fit with Dobbs. If Dobbs reads similar to the leaked draft, something similar to what is currently up could used in the summary if a good enough source can be found. There seems to be some academic discussion of the holding for Roe and the sourcing can be used in the article proper, either (without academic controversy) as a third subsection under "Opinion of the Court" or (if the sources disagree) as a subsection under "Responses within the legal profession". If instead Dobbs presents a theorized central holding of Roe similar to what was discussed by Roberts in the Dobbs oral arguments, a substantially different holding summary could be written for this article. And there will be various sources written about the new central Roe holding, which can go in the Dobbs section near the bottom.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to remove the last sentence. We can't go around saying, "The Texas law making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right" with one flimsy source which it seems is from a college journal and is not even peer reviewed. If it's settled that Texas is violating the constitution we should be able to find multiple RS to back it up.  This is an important article with a  large number of hits and we need to be careful to get things right.  Sectionworker (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

First, American law journals are never peer reviewed like scientific journals are, and the vast majority of them are run by colleges. Neither of those are cause to question reliability. Second, what are you talking about by saying "the Texas legislation" and "Texas is violating the constitution"? Are you referencing the legislation at issue in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson? This article has no direct connection to any of that. That readers are reaching that conclusion is baffling to me. Roe was decided in 1973. Do people think that the Supreme Court owns a secret time machine? , I'm afraid I may be forced to come around to your position. Readers are misinterpreting the holding section of the infobox so badly that we may have to spell it out for them in a way that I never dreamed would be needed. Also, EL, citing Claeys (and the GJLPP, which is modeled on the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy) on this particular article is just asking for trouble.  White Whirlwind   06:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * When I was reverted I did as much reading on this as I could find.  The most convincing thing that I read was an MSNBC  article and a blog post by Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf:
 * "...bear primary responsibility for both the violation of the constitutional rights of Texans and for the diabolical scheme to deprive them of their ability to challenge the violation before it is too late for thousands of them."
 * So, I have changed my mind on this and can now agree with the infobox wording though I think we do need a source. Sectionworker (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dorf is not talking about the Texas law at issue in Roe. He's talking about Texas's new abortion law that was passed in 2021 and allows private parties to sue anyone who participates in some abortions. That law is the subject of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, which the Supreme Court decided a few months ago. Roe had nothing to do with that law. As I said, Roe was issued in 1973. It involved a Texas abortion law that existed back then, not now. How could a decision from 1973 involve a law that was passed in 2021? Do you think the Supreme Court has a time machine? I'm very surprised that we keep getting this misunderstanding.  White Whirlwind   18:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Responding to, "a Texas abortion law that existed back then, not now." Since Texas never repealed it, it still exists. It was enjoined by Roe and is currently unenforceable, but it did not just go away. But other than this side issue, I understand your point and agree that this must be the misunderstanding.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * One quibble.  That is incorrect. The Roe Court did not issue an injunction. It simply struck down the law, to use the common expression. The distinction is significant.   White Whirlwind   20:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for correcting me. Rather than being enjoined, the law was subjected to a "judicially imposed non-enforcement policy" if Turley's theory is the way to put it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

WHPA
you've added material about the Women's Health Protection Act. The problem with your edit is that it violates WP:NPOV by presenting only one side of content which is contested in other reliable sources. After I reverted you, you should have discussed it here per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but instead you re-added it, twice now. Now that I pinged you, this is your chance to write about how you think it should be kept and see whether there is a consensus in support of your addition.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @ Epiphyllumlover: I added content and sources on May 4, 2022 which you reversed on May 4,2022. Following your comments I re-added the material only once. But I did so by rewording my original content, adding a new source and moving the reworded content to another part. My focus was and is not on the the Women's Health Protection Act but that Congress could codify the core holding of Roe into law. To put in another way: I added my material not because of the Women's Health Protection Act, but because Neal Kumar Katyal made the cause that Congress and not the Judicial Branch should regulate the issue of Abortion in the United States (I made an edit to translate this thought into concrete words). For that purpose I added all my sources and in order to document all the sources I found. Perhaps we can find a solution to the problem. If you have any suggestions I am open for them. P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Of all the summarized court cases, how many of the others are gainsaid by a TV pundit? If this really matters to you, put it under "Politics" instead of "Role in judicial decisions". You could write a section for ===Federal legislation regarding Roe=== and use it to summarize laws and failed bills relating to Roe going back to the 70s, both pro- and anti-. This would probably take a while, so you could write it as userspace draft or in your sandbox first. And when the WHPA comes up in the section, to make it NPOV include the opposing view that the WHPA is unconstitutional, see this #1, this #2, and this #3 (see the parts starting with "STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN" and "Ms. Tobias. Currently the law...").--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @ Epiphyllumlover: I'm not interested in a section for ===Federal legislation regarding Roe=== because this, as pointed out by you, "would probably take a while". But I added your source #1 the article in order to provide another perspective because, as you stated, "to make it NPOV". --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A better text than "Such an approach was rejected by The Heritage Foundation because it would deprive state and local governments from being in primary charge of abortion policy and thus of the ability to place any kind of limitation or restriction of any kind on abortion." would be "Thomas Jipping, from the Heritage Foundation think tank, wrote that the WHPA is unconstitutional because it regulates how state legislatures regulate abortion and abortion services, rather then directly regulating abortion from the federal level."


 * "Such an approach..." does not directly contradict the pundit; "Thomas Jipping, from..." directly contradicts the pundit.


 * If you aren't interested in starting a new section covering the WHPA along with other federal legislation, you should still remove your previous contributions to this article and be content with what you added to the Dobbs article. You may have noticed that I feel there is room to discuss the WHPA in the Dobbs article itself. On the other hand, the "Dobbs" section in this article is not a miniature version of the main Dobbs article. Rather it is (ostensibly) about Roe v. Wade's role in Dobbs as a subsequent decision relating to Roe. A pundit talking about the WHPA is politics related to Dobbs itself; it is too far removed for this section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You suggested above put my content under "Politics" instead of "Role in judicial decisions". I followed you suggestion and moved it into said section. A rewording regarding Thomas Jipping as suggested by you a little improvement to readability should make the content complete and bring the issue hopefully to an end. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It didn't seem good to put it above the presidents, so I made a news section, "Federal bills or laws regarding Roe" and listed pieces of federal legislation regarding Roe which have wikipedia articles. This section could use expansion, with a paragraph or sentence about each item. I also changed your text somewhat, but think you will approve.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My rewording of Thomas Jipping from the The Heritage Foundation could have been retained, but I approve your edits. Thanks for your edits which bring the issue to an satysfying end. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Married name of Marie Stopes
, you recently added ('Roe' had been the married name of Marie Stopes who set up the first birth control clinic in England with her husband Humphrey Verdon Roe. Humphrey was the brother of Sir Alliott Verdon Roe, England's famous aircraft manufacturer.) Do you have a source for it? I looked, hoping to keep this in the article, but can't find a source relating this to the choice of "Roe" for the case.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, its my suggestion as I've known of Marie Stopes for decades as her husband was the brother of an aviation pioneer. As relation to her brother-in-law Sir Alliot Verdon Roe, Marie and her husband Humphrey Verdon Roe are mentioned in relation to their birth control clinic in Munson & Taylor's "History of Aviation" c.1972. As for Patricia McCover, the assumed Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade, someone probably knew of Marie's married name and used it in difference to 'Jane Doe' which means an unnamed missing woman.Koplimek (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Page five of this affidavit has McCorvey's story about how they chose "Jane Roe". They went through each letter of the alphabet starting with "A" and tried to rhyme it with "Doe". They got to "R" and decided to use it. This source says the attorneys suggested using a pseudonym to McCorvey, and this source says they chose Roe because they already had two Does. Yet "Jane Roe" was an used before "Roe v. Wade".. Here it was used in a legal template in 1824.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * would you be willing to remove your recent addition, and then re-add it once you find a citation for it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , seeing that you haven't been able to get back to this page yet, I'm going to remove your comment for now, but if you feel strongly or you find a source you can re-add it and we can talk about it from there.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is "Roe" said before "Wade"?
Why is "Roe" said before "Wade", when the state official is the party stated at the end for Casey and Dobbs? Does it have something to do with whether a case is petitioner/respondent as opposed to plaintiff/defendant?

Could this article somehow answer this question?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The answer is in the "Error in the second paragraph" subsection of this talk page. The case was technically cross-appealed by both parties. Thus, SCOTUS didn't reverse the parties' order under its usual practice for when the losing party is the petitioner.  White Whirlwind   18:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * After reflecting on what you wrote, I changed the text directly under Roe_v._Wade.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Mentioning that fact in the article might be overkill. I've never seen a reliable source comment on it.  White Whirlwind   22:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It now reads, "Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court when both sides appealed in 1970. The case continued under the name Roe v. Wade instead of being switched to Wade v. Roe." That both sides appealed is mentioned in sources, maybe I should find one for this sentence. That Roe v. Wade is called Roe v. Wade is tautologically true, and what it is close enough to what I wrote for WP:BLUE to apply. I didn't state it as specifically as you did in your response, and hope it is good enough.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Nixon's immediate reactions to the ruling
The paragraph on Nixon was largely written or revised by Anythingyouwant on July 18, 2007, Words in sanskrit on July 11, 2009, and the IP editor 72.244.201.254 on July 18, 2009. More recently I also improved it. It has been on the article in one form or another for nearly the entire time since then, excepting for some months in 2022 following another content removal by Avatar 317.

Recently, in this edit, removed the following text (I added spaces to the ref tags so they wouldn't code):

In a private conversation following the Roe decision which was later revealed as part of the Nixon tapes, Nixon said, "There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white. Or a rape." Harnden, Toby. "President Richard Nixon Said it Was 'Necessary' to Abort Mixed-Race Babies, Tapes Reveal," The Daily Telegraph (June 24, 2009). On the same tape, Nixon also said "Abortions encourage permissiveness" and "It breaks the family".

The edit summary given was "Removed statements made by Nixon which have nothing to do with the court case "Roe v. Wade", the subject of this article".

This edit summary is incorrect according to the NY Times and Telegraph sources. The comments Nixon made were during a low-key conversational setting with someone he trusted shortly after the decision was released. Given that Nixon did not comment publicly, this is the most honest opinion from Nixon concerning the decision available from reliable sources.

I think the content should be restored. What do you think?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to restore this content on the basis of WP:SILENT and on the basis of the self-reverted, fearful yet supportive comment visible on this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roe_v._Wade&oldid=1087359647 --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * removed the above text again, with the edit summary


 * "Undid revision 1088580148 by Epiphyllumlover (talk)Your continued WP:BLUDGEONING of talk pages does NOT indicate consensus. These comments are not about the court decision RvW"


 * Avatar, your revert went against WP:Consensus, given that seven days had passed (per WP:SILENT) without any comment by you on the talk page. You should self-revert and discuss any concerns you have here. To the contrary of your edit summary, Nixon's comments were about Roe v. Wade; they were made during a conversation about the ruling shortly after it occurred. The sources cited state this:


 * The Daily Telegraph article states at the beginning


 * "Commenting privately on the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe vs Wade, which decriminalised abortion in the US, the then-president said..."


 * The NY Times article states at the beginning


 * "On Jan. 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But the next day, newly released tapes reveal, he privately expressed..."
 * --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request
Sarah Weddington, an attorney and women's reproductive health activist, was inspired to mount a constitutional challenge for abortion to be a challenge after researching abortion case-law to try to get Texas' abortion law overturned. She partnered with Linda Coffee, a fellow classmate from University of Texas School of Law, who had federal court experience serving as a clerk for Sarah T. Hughes. The first client to approach Weddington and Coffee was a woman with a neuro-chemical disorder who had been advised by her doctor to avoid pregnancy until her condition improved along with her husband. The woman's doctor had also recommended that she not take birth control pills due to her disorder, so the couple's case for needing abortion was their right to the intimacy they wanted as a married couple. Worried that the lawsuit would get tossed on standing, Weddington and Coffee continued to look for a willing plaintiff who was pregnant. However, as most of the women they worked with already had the funds for an abortion, it took some time to find a pregnant plaintiff for the sake of standing.

Norma McCorvey, was a troubled 21 year old who was pregnant for the 3rd time and had already given up her first two children. Her doctor declined her request for an abortion and recommended she meet with an adoption lawyer instead. The lawyer, Henry McCuskey, offered to help her with her adoption needs but put her in touch with Linda Coffee in case she seriously wanted to go the abortion route. Although McCorvey would later claim that she did not even know what an abortion was, she met with Weddington and Coffee and agreed to partake in the lawsuit so that she might get a legal abortion. To protect her privacy she was given the pseudonym Jane Roe.

In 1970 Weddington and Coffee filed two separate lawsuits for Jane Roe and the couple (John Doe and Mary Doe) in The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division against the Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade. Coffee's old boss Sarah T. Hughes' court was in the Dallas division and Weddington and Coffee believed that she would have a more favorable outlook on their case. By filing two separate cases on the rotating docket, Weddington and Coffee also hoped to increase their chances of Hughes hearing their case.

_____________________

Keep end, striking italicized portion as the relationship is already mentioned

McCorvey's lawsuit was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of district court judges Sarah T. Hughes and William McLaughlin Taylor Jr. and appellate judge Irving Loeb Goldberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[44] Judge Hughes knew Coffee, who clerked for her from 1968–1969.[45] On June 17, 1970, the three judges unanimously[44] ruled in McCorvey's favor and declared the Texas law unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment. In addition, the court relied on Justice Arthur Goldberg's 1965 concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut. The court, however, declined to grant an injunction against enforcing the law.[46]

--Greenbilli (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Greenbilli, thank you for going through and checking things. Earlier I walked away from this article and left some things undone. Now with a critical mass of editors it might be possible to make more progress. Yes, McCorvey claimed it later, but so did the co-author, and the books are generally treated as reliable. Where McCorvey's books and Praeger differ I'd go with Praeger. I went through and fixed some issues in the paragraph about Sarah and Linda meeting and deciding to join each other. I hope these changes will satisfy your concerns, especially in place of granting your edit request. There are quite a few sources free on the internet which rely on Weddington's book and McCorvey's two books. It is possible to go through and find ones which discuss the various pages in question, and then use them as citations to improve the article. I did this for references [38] through [40], so they can stay.
 * Weddington's problem wasn't that most plantiffs had money for an abortion, it was that most plaintiffs had the money to travel and get an abortion elsewhere rather than give birth during the lawsuit. A concern they had about standing was that the other woman was not actually pregnant. So they needed a woman who was impoverished and pregnant; Weddington also stated that they needed the woman to be white, but it is unclear exactly why. Public opinion? Did they think the judges were prejudiced?
 * The purpose of the pseudonym was two-fold--one was to keep McCorvey's identity private, and other was because midway through the case they switched it to class action. A legal pseudonym with minimal background details facilitated the switch to class action. Yet who the class was was never precisely defined: (Possibilities: The two women and one husband? The two women, one husband, and the physician intervenor? all women in the United States? all Texas women? Pregnant Texas women?) During the deliberations at the Supreme Court the question came up whether Roe was a real woman, it was stated that it didn't matter. Yet it didn't seem like any justices doubted that Jane Roe was a real woman.
 * The article should not emphasize that she had given up her earlier two children without discussing how she was allegedly manipulated into giving up her first baby against her will, after which she turned to alcoholism, Jane Roe gone Rogue discusses it on page 14. Most people think adoptions are consensual, and most are, so it would be bad to mislead the reader into thinking she voluntarily gave up both of her other children. Yet this is too much detail for the background to this article. So the adoptions should be covered on the Norma McCorvey article instead.
 * The italicized portion is the only place in the article where it says that Hughes knew Coffee or vice-versa, so it should be kept.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A co-author of a book telling _____ party's story does not make that party's story the truth nor does it increase the story's veracity. None of the sources added in 38-40 say anything of needing a white pregnant woman, nor have I come across anything written by Weddington stating that the woman needed to be white. The plaintiff was needed to sign an affidavit, but there was never an intention to have the plaintiff testify or be examined by the court. The filed affidavit has only two potentially identifying pieces of information: date of pregnancy and education level.
 * I agree, means rather than funds would be the proper wording and a more direct wording of why that would be a problem would be best.
 * However, as most of the women they worked with already had the means for an abortion and therefore would not be pregnant at the time of filing the lawsuit, it took some time to find a pregnant plaintiff for the sake of standing.
 * I don't believe that the poverty aspect needs to be explicit as the implication is straightforward when women having the means for an abortion aren't straightforward but it could be said.
 * Again, there are no sources that are currently cited that say that Weddington needed a white plaintiff, and Weddington's presented logic about their approach towards there plaintiff offers zero interest in the race of the plaintiff as the plaintiff is to be anonymous.
 * The suggested edit is for the entirety of the first few paragraphs, and speaks to the Coffee-Hughes relationship multiple times. Everything about "forum shopping" is wholly unhelpful when that page's information is about selecting a jurisdiction for the jurisdiction's laws. In this case both lawsuits were put into the same jurisdiction and so the laws being interpreted between different judges would be the same. It's both more straightforward and less editorial to layout exactly what they were hoping for, hence the last few lines of the edit:
 * ''Coffee's old boss Sarah T. Hughes' court was in the Dallas division and Weddington and Coffeebelieved that she would have a more favorable outlook on their case. By filing two separate cases on the rotating docket, Weddington and Coffee also hoped to increase their chances of Hughes hearing their case.
 * I completely agree that it shouldn't be emphasized and that in that context "had already given up her first two children" is inappropriate wording. That can be rectified with different wording, "had been pushed into giving up her first two children"/"had been pushed into the position of giving up her first two children".
 * The third paragraph in the section is still irrelevant as far as the solicitation rule (there was no pecuniary gain for Weddington & Coffee so there isn't an ethical question, let alone a loophole). And to reiterate, there is no source substantiating McCorvey's claim that isn't McCorvey (as in neither Prager nor Weddington put forth that notion).
 * Weddington is quite clear in her book about her strategy, which was rather callous to the particulars of the plaintiffs. That disregard alongside the clearly laid out strategy makes the history of the case cut and dry. The drawing up of a narrative with unrelated terminology like 'forum shopping' and initial vagueness around a preferred judge when Weddington is explicit in who they hoped for is both unhelpful and technically incorrect. Greenbilli (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaking their scheme for increasing the likelihood of their scheme to get the rotating docket to come out in their favor with "selecting a jurisdiction". Yes, Weddington is explicit about her and Coffee's strategy in her book, which came years afterwards. Just because someone admits to an unethical or questionable behavior later on does not mean it wasn't unethical, or was originally honest. "Forum shopping" is the present day term for a variety of behaviors, including manipulating a rotating docket system to get a preferred judge. So it is not unrelated terminology; possibly the term did not exist in 1973; I'm not sure when the term came about.
 * I think you are mistaking their scheme for increasing the likelihood of their scheme to get the rotating docket to come out in their favor with "selecting a jurisdiction". Yes, Weddington is explicit about her and Coffee's strategy in her book, which came years afterwards. Just because someone admits to an unethical or questionable behavior later on does not mean it wasn't unethical, or was originally honest. "Forum shopping" is the present day term for a variety of behaviors, including manipulating a rotating docket system to get a preferred judge. So it is not unrelated terminology; possibly the term did not exist in 1973; I'm not sure when the term came about.


 * The pecuniary gain for the attorneys came later through the general reputational benefits and career advancement. Yet McCorvey stayed at a lower SES class and was looked down upon. Weddington even gratuitously insults her appearance in her book, A Question of Choice. The disparity of eventual outcomes shows up in a variety of later commentaries, especially Praeger.


 * It is more complicated than "had been pushed into giving up her first two children"---her second child appears to have been a voluntary adoption; the first one was alleged to be coercive. To treat this issue, the article must go into detail that isn't suitable for this article. Maybe it could be written up on the McCorvey article.


 * McCorvey's two books are co-authored, which could count them as secondary sources. Moreover, they are generally considered reliable and are closely used by secondary sources. The affidavit is only a primary source, which is why I added another source for the quote referencing race; this indicates that the quote is reliable enough to be used in a secondary source. I have come across some discussion of Weddington's racial views and as to whether she was a racist, but I don't think it is worth including in this article. It could be that she just assumed the court system would discriminate against a non-white.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you just purposefully being intellectually dishonest to write your own editorialized summary? You say you choose to believe "Praeger" who I assume to be Joshua Prayer, and he explicitly describers McCorvey as an unreliable narrator.
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/jane-roe-v-wade-baby-norma-mccorvey/620009/
 * Adding an article that cites an unreliable primary source does not make the primary source more reliable. A recollection of what was specifically said while consuming alcohol 30 years after the fact, is not reliable.
 * Forum shopping doesn't inherently imply that something is unethical so I still do not understand the insistence to use the term. It adds absolutely nothing in value in summarizing what actually happened.
 * You're correct, there was pecuniary gain. However given that Weddington's motivation was reproductive rights, proven by her dedication to the effort before and after the case, there still is no ethical question surrounding pecuniary gains. McCorvey was also not solicited, her adoption lawyer simply referred her to them if she wanted to go the abortion route. Calling it a loophole in already questionable extraneous content just goes to show that it's an attempt to display your own opinion.
 * Being pushed into the position of giving up both children is perfectly ambiguous and doesn't offer any complexities to the understanding of this case. Greenbilli (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Since you are new to Wikipedia, I'll refer you to the Assume good faith article. It would hurt Wikipedia's function if talk pages deteriorated into accusations of bad faith. From the link I cited, it is not necessary to respond to this part of your comment, but I will anyway: I and the other editors working on this page described the historical events which happened; doing so is not an editorialized summary, nor intellectually dishonest. Reading on in your comment: Yes, I mean Joshua Prager (now that we both misspelled his name). When Prager finds inconsistencies with McCorvey's statements, he researches that. If he countered her specific statement here, I would by all means remove it. Yet McCorvey's books, affidavit, and Weddington's book are generally seen as reliable and used as such by secondary sources. Wherever reliable secondary sources cite the primary sources, that indicates that the secondary source found the primary source to be reliable in the part cited. Forum shopping today is seen as unethical. Since it was in 1973 I am less sure what the standards were for it then, but the article doesn't say that specifically. Overall, Weddington's ambition and behavior are described in multiple sources.


 * We don't know that Weddington's motivation was only for reproductive rights. Carefully analyzing her motivations would be a topic for the Weddington article rather than this one, but since you bring it up: In her book, A Question of Choice, she takes delight in putting down McCorvey in a petty manner, despite the book being published while McCorvey was still pro-abortion rights. Some people enjoy taking advantage of others, because they can, and it gives them power. McCorvey later agreed with this perspective, claiming she was "used" and later discarded. There is plenty of negative discussion about Weddington's behavior in Won by Love, written after McCorvey left the pro-choice movement. I don't think it is a good use of the article's space to wade in on all that McCorvey writes about, but if you are interested in researching the overall picture I am mentioning it anyway. I am not aware of any which specifically fault Weddington's getting McCorvey to consume alcohol as part of her overall manipulative behavior, but I would not be surprised if there were.


 * Some sources have looked at Weddington's motivation from the personal, social angle--that she had an abortion, yet was a pastor's daughter. From this angle, she may have been personally motivated to legalize and normalize abortion to improve her personal social situation. Additionally, the historical record indicates that McCorvey's personal life was harmed by how things happened. In particular, McCorvey was led to think she would be able to legally abort if they won, rather than the case taking too long. This is significant because an attorney is required to act in the client's interest. That this did not happen is documented in reliable sources. So, even if Weddington was perfectly motivated only by a national cause and nothing else it was still an ethical violation.


 * As for loophole, since you mention it I'm changing it to "exception" since they are synonyms and exception is a better way to put it.


 * No, it doesn't offer any complexities to the understanding of this case, but it is of limited pertinence when compared to the amount of text it would take to discuss it. It belongs in the McCorvey article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I will look into other mediation routes, thanks for the link.
 * Secondary sources with no obligation to verify an unreliable primary source's claim do not change the reliability of the primary source. The notion that if Joshua Prager did not address a certain line of somebody he deemed unreliable it means that he found it to be true is utterly lacking.
 * This is the second reference to Weddinton being insulting to McCorvey and I can only assume you're talking about "she was wearing jeans and an oversize blouse that was not tucked in, peasant style." Peasant style isn't an insult, it's literally a style.
 * I believe the edit I provided tells a more objective history. This isn't the place to dispute motivations and the use of contentious sources to add ancillary information doesn't improve the article. Greenbilli (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather, it was nasty joke shared by her secretary and appreciated by Weddington. Republishing it in the book was gratuitous, and although there is a reliable secondary source discussing this I decided it wasn't fit for the article. You may notice that the article shows some more bumps and warts than a magazine piece would. It goes for both parties in the suit -- Notice the attention paid by the article to the sexist joke by Jay Floyd. There were a great deal of bumps and warts that did not make it into the article. A number of figures in this history were rather colorful characters; they weren't buttoned down by 70s standards, nor would they be regarded as politically correct today.


 * Wikipedia focuses more on verifiability rather than truth. You (and I) lack the standing to define the co-authored books as unreliable, carte blanche. There is a procedure for source depreciation on Wikipedia but I don't see that happening with the sources you question. If you can find a reliable secondary source which counters the books specifically in the questions you've raised, that would be one thing. Bring it up on here and discuss it on the talk page. It wouldn't have to be Prager per se, instead it could be any of the historians which have tried to piece together the history.


 * Another way to look at it is that all or nearly all sources within the last two decades covering Roe v. Wade's history in depth use one or more of Weddington's and McCorvey's books as sources, either cited or uncited. If the books were so terrible they couldn't be used for history, it would invalidate this whole field of scholarship. Instead of seeing the books as all-or-nothing, I see them as generally reliable sources, from which only particular aspects have been questioned or found inconsistent. Even Prager uses McCorvey's books among other sources; his judgement about McCorvey's unreliability didn't keep him from doing that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please just cite the nasty joke you're referring to and your additional secondary source.
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the Jay Floyd part. The linked article as well as the source linked to in said article are not calling it the "worst joke in legal history" due to some perceived sexism but rather because the joke fell flat and reflected poorly on the oral argument. While I'm sure the joke is sexist, I don't see why that would be the relevant point in the citation as opposed to Dr. Ryan Malphur speaking to the momentum being killed. https://web.archive.org/web/20130128015236/http://www.lifeofthelaw.org/tough-crowd< /ref >
 * Autobiographies and memoirs having a co-author does not make them more reliable, a co-author's job in that situation is to write the subject's story. Secondary sources like the American Conservative have
 * A) a conflict of interest in that the linked article is an opinion peace pushing a certain perspective and therefore wouldn't have interest in verifying McCorvey's claims
 * B) No deeper interest in McCorvey to delve into her claims to determine their veracity
 * What we actually need is a reliable secondary source that can verify such claims by McCorvey. Despite insinuations about Weddington's behavior, McCorvey's own affidavit about that night claims heavy alcohol consumption after meeting with Weddington and Coffee so with the information that you and I have from McCorvey we absolutely have the standing to question the reliability of her claims about that night.
 * I do think that it should be made explicit that McCorvey was exploited by Weddington and Coffee to be their plaintiff so I would change the last sentence in my originally proposed edit to say:
 * "However, as most of the women they worked with already had the funds for an abortion, it took some time to find a pregnant plaintiff who didn't have the means for a quick abortion for the sake of standing."
 * McCorvey's point of view is indeed largely unhelpful for reading into the procedural history of the case as according to both her and Weddington's recollections McCorvey did not participate in the trial. And to your previous point of 'bumps and warts' on both sides, the oral arguments section ends again with a negative slant at Weddington. There should be a reliable source that makes explicit that Weddington talked McCorvey out of an abortion when McCorvey lacked the means to acquire one according to her own affidavit.
 * If you don't mind could you tag some other active editors of this article so we can have some outside feedback here? As I said in my previous post I believe my suggested edit is devoid of these contentious issues and is at least the direction this article should be moving towards. Greenbilli (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The nasty comment was lower down on this page. I'm not sure which secondary source referenced it, but probably could find it with enough effort. There are also sources referencing Weddington looking down on McCorvey, such as Mixed Blood Theatre's 'Roe' remembers abortion rights plaintiff 'exploited by both sides'. This source also discusses the lesbianism aspect. McCorvey stated that the reason she lied about being raped to Weddington and Coffee was because she thought they were looking down on her lesbianism and she wanted to compensate for that. McCorvey was unaware about Coffee's sexual orientation at the time at least, and maybe well afterwards also.


 * Weddington talked McCorvey out of seeking an illegal abortion; yes, she might not have been able to procure one anyway, but at the time Weddington still was concerned that she would. McCorvey knew that Weddington had an abortion, and attempted to get information from Weddington towards about where she got one. Weddington would not tell her because she needed McCorvey to stay pregnant for the time being. This was part of talking her out of getting an abortion. Had Weddington told her details, McCorvey may have used that information and gotten an abortion herself.


 * With respect to a co-author's influence on reliability, I disagree and think it helps improve it. It is enough in this case that historians use the three books as sources. With respect to slanting, I disagree; the article relates what happened. Things may have been positive or negative for different individuals but that relates to the history at hand rather than to the article being slanted. There is no requirement that the article (or any particular section) discuss people in a way that makes them look good, bad, or neither. This is not how neutrality works on Wikipedia. Nor is it reasonable to expect this article to be devoid of these or other contentious issues; much about the case has been contentious by one side or another over the decades. It is enough that the article discusses contentious issues from multiple sides using reliable sources.


 * You advocated for an objective character to the article, and my response was that the article shows the bumps and warts of a variety of figures who were not politically correct. The article does this for both the pro- and anti- sides, so it maintains neutrality. You may not like the article talking about Weddington's ethical issues, but a hypothetical reader on the other side may not like the sexist joke being featured prominently in the article. Yet keeping both serves the cause of neutrality. Scrubbing the bumps and warts out of this history is not appropriate. Prager doesn't do that in his history either; he looks at the subjective-oriented aspects of the figures he researches. You will find scrubbed, streamlined and objectivist-oriented narrative in older treatments in magazine articles. The American Conservative is not the only source mentioning McCorvey's whiteness as a factor for her suitability as a plaintiff, another source also mentions it, which I just added it to the article. The American Conservative is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a professional academic journal. Sources do not need to be absolutely perfect and ideal in every way. The article also cites articles on the other side of the political spectrum. In the same way, they don't need to be absolutely perfect either. It is not necessary to get a more reliable source. The "However, as... " change omits the specific ethical lapses; describing them in some detail is helpful to the reader, so I disagree. Your concerns about heavy alcohol consumption could be used in a casual conversation with your friends or as a point made against a witness in a courtroom, but for Wikipedia purposes your concerns cannot be used for the article without an article specifically gainsaying McCorvey's testimony for the specific portion you have challenged, due to the heavy alcohol consumption. (And even then, such a source could probably be used for another ethical issue; that of plying a client with alcohol when looking for an agreement.) Standing on wikipedia does not work the way your last comment implies.


 * Your recent addition change to your earlier proposed edit acknowledging an ethical issue does not mention the other ethical issues, which are discussed in reliable sources.


 * With respect to tagging active editors one way or the other, see the Canvassing guideline and use your own best judgment. I am not giving permission to break the guideline, yet think it possible you might be able to tag one or more editors without violating the guideline.


 * McCorvey did not participate in the bulk of the trial because Weddington and/or Coffee advised against it and kept her out of communications. McCorvey was seen as a liability. McCorvey's views have been used in numerous secondary sources over the years from a variety of perspectives. Likewise her views shaped how the trial was perceived by the general public. Even though the case eventually used "Roe" as a class to refer to all women, it would be inappropriate to exclude items whose source can be traced back to McCorvey from the article simply because they can be traced back to McCorvey.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From the reliable source page:
 * Context matters
 * The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
 * In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
 * __
 * This isn't going to be a constructive conversation if the defense of the biased writing in this article is that "verifiability is more important than truth." Verifiability is based on sources being reliable, which is based on the truth. The American Conservative is explicitly not reliable for facts by Wikipedia's standards. The latest added article is original research and it does not directly substantiate the claim that it is being cited for. McCorvey herself said that her pro-abortion stance was an act to exploit the movement and leaders of the movement confirmed that she was paid and coached in her stance, which gives rise to conflict of interest issues as far as the reliability.
 * You did not provide an actual example of "bumps and warts". Regardless, that portion of the article is outside of the scope of the edit request. If your final stance is that the sources used in the article are reliable because they are mentioned in other articles than we are at an impasse. Greenbilli (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I feel this conversation has already been constructive from the changes you prompted me to make. It sometimes happens on this website that you get everything you want out of a content dispute, but not usually. The American Conservative is not depreciated and it is independent of the individual it quotes. There are sources on the exact opposite of the political spectrum used elsewhere in the article. It doesn't make sense to censor one side for having a political orientation, but not the other. Jimbo Wales's hope for Wikipedia was that biases would balance each other out, which isn't going to happen if the conservative sources get axed for bias, but not the liberal sources. I just added a non-partisan news source to the reference for the American Conservative, the non-partisan source also uses the quote. If there was a reliable source specifically stating that McCovey had perjured herself during the affidavit, I would not use it as a quote. The entire affidavit was reproduced in a brief to the Supreme Court in 2019, something I wouldn't expect had the content fallen into disrepute in the years after McCorvey testified. Weddington and Coffee are not on the record contradicting the content which McCorvey gave in the affidavit. If other sources contradicted the quote and said that really an African-American plaintiff was what they were looking for, or that they preferred a wealthy or even middle-class plaintiff, that would undercut the quote, but I don't see that. Other sources describing the hunt for a plaintiff yet not relying on any quote describe the need for a pregnant plaintiff. They also describe the situation with how wealthy women could get an abortion, but poor women generally didn't have the means, except for unsafe illegal abortions. "Jane Roe gone Rogue" describes the whiteness factor. So what other sources state in more roundabout ways is pretty close to the content of the quote. I agree that context matters, and the context available supports the veracity of the quote.


 * While McCorvey described exploiting some members or organizations in the anti-abortion movement, she remained part of the anti-abortion movement even shortly before her death. The "bumps and warts" in this article are anything which is similar in content to what you'd see in a personal interest story; anything which appeals to those looking more at the subjectivist rather than objectivist side of things. An example would be the sexist joke; it doesn't illustrate any legal principles but is useful to readers looking at things more at the subjective level.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not particularly interested in your debate here, I merely wish to observe that you seem to have added an American Conservative citation without in-line attribution. The consensus, as I understand it, is that you must do so (WP:RSPSOURCES). But in any case, surely there's a less partisan source for the material for which you cite it. (McCorvey asked if she had what was needed to be part of the Weddington and Coffee's lawsuit. She was told, "Yes. You're white. You're young, pregnant, and you want an abortion.")  White Whirlwind   23:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out its listing, which I was unaware of. Since yahoo!life is already in the reference, I'll just remove American Conservative instead of in-text attributing it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I went back to the RSPSOURCES link after removing the reference. It says that only "opinions sourced to it" must be in-text attributed. Since this is a quote rather than an opinion, it wouldn't require an in-text attribution. Yet I already removed American Conservative, so I think I'll just let it be for now.


 * I went back to the affidavit. At the beginning, it says, "I am competent to make this affidavit. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My point was that McCorvey claiming to be told something is an important distinction from stating as fact that she was told it. The article as it is states it as a fact despite it not being directly backed by the sources that are cited.
 * Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. 
 * Leaving out a particular claim that is unsubstantiated in any linked sources is not censorship. yahoo!life writing a short piece has nothing to do with non-partinsanship. An amicus curiae filed by a party that has a clear political conflict of interest has nothing to do with the truth and therefore reliability. The entire sentence about about a specific source stating that they were looking for an African American or a wealthy woman has nothing to do with anything. Substantiation of whiteness being crucial is what I am asking for and "Jane Roe Goes Rogue" studying feminist attitudes towards Jane Roe does not substantiate the whiteness claim. There is only a statement saying that whiteness was crucial but the thesis never attempts to substantiate that claim. Already falling into the original research realm, "Jane Roe Goes Rogue" does not adequately cover any claim about the importance of whiteness to Coffee and Weddington in regards to the case.
 * My suggested edit doesn't have a political slant (unless the use of 'reproductive health activist' vs 'abortion rights activist' is considered political in which case the latter is perfectly fine). An affidavit being reproduced adds 0 credibility when the question at hand is the reliability of the original affidavit.
 * The context available does absolutely nothing to support the veracity of the quote as everything simply cites it, to continue to act as if that's a fact is a fruitless point of debate. The continued insistence that the "sexist joke" being present meaning that the article is from a neutral point of view is also simply not true. As I explained, the articles making that insinuation are quite clear that the fault in the joke is that it did not land and at no point do they make sexism the reason for the joke not landing. The joke being considered sexist in the eyes of an opinion piece is not pertinent to the article, however as that portion of the article is outside of the scope of the edit request here I will leave it at that.
 * __________
 * I'm going to summarize my issues with the section as I don't find this to be a constructive conversation as outside of fixing factual misunderstanding of sources this section of the article has only been added to negatively.
 * -The writing itself is poor "narratively", the lawsuit did not claim that abortion should be legal because a particular woman had a neurochemical disorder
 * -Weddington & Coffee wanting a pregnant plaintiff who was pregnant and could not attain an abortion is not stated despite not being able to attain an abortion being the critical point. As is the article aimlessly tells of Weddington & Coffee wanting a pregnant plaintiff
 * -Without the above context, troubles with finding a plaintiff are excess sentences that add nothing
 * -The 'paragraph' about lawyers soliciting clients is entirely inapplicable as McCorvey wasn't solicited. Given that the paragraph also mentions that there isn't an issue even with solicitation, there is zero purpose in the inclusion of the paragraph. Next, the paragraph puts forth information that is not actually substantiated which suggests a lack of neutrality while adding nothing as far as comprehension. Greenbilli (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to seek a 3rd opinion for this if we are at a standstill. I don't find your explanations of how my suggestions are censorship or how the article is actually neutral or how the claims that many, including myself, would perceive as biased are substantiated to be satisfactory. Citation of a primary source whilst not making any attempt to verify is not substantiation. If you are going to put forth a questionable source, the onus is on you to provide substantiation of that source, not on others to find sources specifically disputing each and every point. If the article is going to mention an unreliable source even when unsubstantiated than the article should also explain why the source is unreliable. Again, my proposed edit does not delve into such hearsay and I believe it provides a more objective picture. Greenbilli (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with going through the third opinion process with what you just described. I am not necessarily opposed to using 3O, but this is far too many things at once. Instead, I suggest that you pick one specific thing to get a 3O about, and ask me to agree with going through the 3O process on just that item?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since responding on May 18, I went over your more general thoughts in your last post, and changed the article to add in-text attribution to McCorvey's quote -- not to the secondary source -- but to the affidavit. I'm not sure if you have had a chance to check the talk page and are still interested in getting a third opinion on one item at a time.


 * I also reworded the section about the married couple, the Does to indicate the claim relied on a medical necessity argument. The neurochemical disorder was vouched by her doctor and the woman, but the Weddington and Coffee were skeptical that judges would accept it; it seems that they didn't think the disorder was that serious and this would jeopardize their standing. They also wanted an already pregnant plaintiff also for purposes of standing. Yet they didn't swap out McCorvey for the Does, but kept both. This allowed them to maximize their chances of getting Judge Hughes in the rotating docket. A possible aspect to this which is not stated is that Coffee originally hoped for a class action suit, but then they did not file it that way. Before it reached the Supreme Court they changed it be a class action. I'm not sure if having multiple plaintiffs made it easier to change it to a class action, but it might have, and if so it could have been a factor in keeping the Does in the case; I haven't seen sources on it.


 * McCorvey was solicited; she originally thought she was meeting an adoption attorney. She had previously sought an abortion, but she hadn't sought a lawyer to sue for an abortion. On page 15 of the reference, it says:


 * "...lawyers have been ethically restrained from making contact with potential plaintiffs no matter how meritorious the client's unsuspected claim for damages might be. 6 However, out of deference to the First Amendment rights of lawyers who have a desire to further civil rights and similar political objectives, states may not discipline lawyers who take the initiative and actively solicit clients, like McCorvey, so that they can invoke a right to judicial resolution of the political questions on their minds..."


 * So soliciting was, and still is allowed because it was a public interest case. Yet the ethical oriented article used as a reference is extensive because it raised issues anyway, especially when the solicitation factor interacted with other aspects.


 * I changed the "forum shopping" wikilink to "panel selection" because the old wikilink does not (yet) discuss non-random panel assortments, but the new wikilink does.


 * The information given in the history section is substantiated; as with many Wikipedia articles there is some rewording of sentences to fit in wikilinks to other articles and to make it understandable to the writer. Fitting in terms as wikilinks changes the narrative flow somewhat, but having articles linked to it that otherwise wouldn't be allows readers without a legal background to understand more details. I don't think the flow is that much of an issue; many wikipedia articles read somewhat funny because they are written by different authors anyway.


 * The source used for the sexist joke is a more-or-less neutral popular interest article, but the anecdote is also used in other sources (not cited here) for political purposes. Besides the sexist joke, other small details which are more subjectivist-oriented include the fundraising for Wheeler, the anecdote about the leaker, Weddington's granite/sandstone analogy (which she repeated during many low-key speaking events over the years), the details about how many justices Blackmun thought to be willing to vote for the majority, Blackmun's trip to the Mayo Clinic, Blackmun's reflections about Methodist pastors' condemnations, the picture from the Library of Congress, and the details of why Blackmun was chosen instead of others.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about Epiphyllumlover's behavior on this Talk page at Administrators’ Noticeboard
Avatar317 has started a discussion about Epiphyllumlover's discussions/behavior at the ANI board here: WP:AN --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

External links: Lawnix
In the External Links section, there is a link titled Summary of Roe v. Wade at Lawnix.com that goes to . The site no longer exists, so it goes to to archive.org instead. It's a nice summary on Roe v. Wade, but it doesn't seem like a high quality link to have on the page. It seems like we should just have the Wikipedia page on Roe v. Wade be a useful summary, so linking to this page seems redundant. Was going to be bold and just delete, but wanted to raise this quality concern on the Talk page for a controversial page that is semi-protected. --Ashawley (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The most valuable content it has is the summary "Roe wins...Hallford loses...The Does lose". I know of know other sources so succinct aside from some educational materials in .doc format. Maybe there is one on an educational oriented site? --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You're saying that part of the page is valuable or you're being facetious? --Ashawley (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am serious about its value; it is the equivalent of a CliffsNotes version of Roe v. Wade. If there is a printed CliffsNotes for Roe I'd expect it to read very similar to the lawnix site except with shorter words. Imagine a reader who thinks this page is too long and scrolls down to the bottom and clicks on the links.


 * If you can find a live link to replace lawnix which is similar in character, replace it yourself or present it here. There's no question that a dead link is lower in quality because it is dead.


 * Oyez lacks the three-part disposition that lawnix has; very few summary-type resources mention both the Does and Hallford; even this article fails to mention Hallford. Yet Oyez has a cleaner reading summary than lawnix. If you go through more educational and student-oriented sites you may find a good replacement for lawnix.


 * Lawnix is suitable for an undergraduate student taking US history, knowing that could help you look. I imagine that a student might be asked to write down what Roe's holding is. The wikipedia page no longer has a holding, for complicated reasons described on this talk page. But lawnix has a nice summary of the holding in question & answer format. So the student could still find the answer with some work.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed the external link you asked after adding the material I thought was important from it to the article. Since I'm about to be topic-banned, you'll need to ask other questions or requests to someone else, probably .--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Role in judicial decisions
, I saw your recent addition, which includes cases both before Roe and after Roe. Until now, the == Role in judicial decisions == section was limited to decisions which followed Roe. Wondering about what could be done with it, I looked up the source. It is cited to Nancy Northup, so it could go under Roe_v._Wade, probably as a new paragraph at the bottom, or somehow integrated into the current last paragraph. Yet there are other possibilities, especially if you want to find a different source saying the same thing, make more changes to it, or expand on it considerably. What do you think?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epiphyllumlover: After my initial edition and adding a new source I followed your suggestion by rewording the content to clarify that Roe is part of a continuum of cases concerning personal liberty in the realm of privacy. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I hadn't noticed your revision until you mentioned it, it looks like an improvement. If you are leaving it in the same section, could you also separate your addition so it makes its own paragraph, and also move your new paragraph above the picture of Justice Marshall?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How could Roe have played a role in decisions that predate it? I would delete the added sentence and the op-ed pieces it cites.  White Whirlwind   01:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The requested change regarding the addition was made. There is no mention in the sentence that Roe played a role in decisions that predate it. It merely states that Roe is embedded in a long line of cases concerning personal liberty in the realm of privacy along with the names of the aforementioned cases. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But it states it immediately below the title of the subsection, which is "Role in judicial decisions". That title's implied subject is Roe. Roe did not play a role in decisions that predate it. Also, those op-ed pieces are not reliable sources here (see WP:RSEDITORIAL). The sentence and the op-ed citations should be deleted.  White Whirlwind   19:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The point that I tried to make is that Roe is part of a continuum of cases going back to cases like like Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and mowing forward to cases like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). The best way to do this was in my opinion the start of the subsection "Role in judicial decisions" because I knew no better place to place my sentence. I also placed my sentence at the beginning of the subsection "Role in judicial decisions" to show that Roe has a certain background (here: cases concerning personal liberty in the realm of privacy) which led to other cases that share the same background. Starting with this edit and subsequent edits I added new sources for the op-ed citations. I also made certain op-ed citations invisible to preserve them so that they can be used for further reading. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "The point that I tried to make..." - YOU shouldn't be making a point unless RS's support and say that point, otherwise it is WP:OR. From the news I have heard, I believe that others ARE in fact saying this, but we should have more references than just the RvW decision itself and the NYT as a source.  I would suspect that is would not be hard to find other independent sources saying this same thing. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

At least one op-ed reference was still there when I checked, so I deleted it. I'm not opposed to adding that Roe is part of a continuum. The title of the subsection seems to be part of the problem. Why not call it "Subsequent developments" and focus on that aspect? Regarding your sources, your new citations are news articles. Those might or might not qualify as reliable sources here. I suspect they'll qualify, though I would not use them for the statement you are trying to support, since most journalists are not legal experts. Perhaps other editors could weigh in.  White Whirlwind   22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I readded, but hid the deleted source for further reading, because it was the source for my new sentence. Thanks for your suggestions. I changed the subsection heading from "Role in judicial decisions" to "Subsequent judicial developments", so that the focus remains on the judicial decions as it is now the case. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suspect that we can find news articles where the journalist interviews a law professor for a statement and that would be a good source, in my opinion. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Current Event tag
I see that your reverted my removal of the current event template. The template documentation notes that the tag is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic. And, the point of the template is to address issues with WP:RSBREAKING, which really isn't an issue with a 49 year-old decision. The only part of this article that involves breaking news is a single subsection of the "Subsequent judicial developments" section, so the tag seems like overkill to me. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with and think that Template:Current probably isn't needed on this article at all, I've moved the tag to the relevant section to hopefully avoid some confusion. For the immediate short term, it may be useful there and I presume fits with the purpose  intended. --N8wilson 17:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

6-3 vote
@Urnslenny: It IS a 6-3 vote: See this URL. It says "Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgement". — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 15:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To anyone reading this, the decision was actually more complicated than just a 6-3 vote, see the sections below. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022
please change On June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned both Roe and Casey by a vote of 6–3. to On June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi abortion restrictions, with 5 of the 9 Justices voting to overturn both Roe and Casey. ScyllaWest310 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 17:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Unprecedented Release?
Section 3 Supreme Court Decision states that, "Larry Hammond, a law clerk for Powell, gave a Time reporter a copy of the decision 'on background,' expecting that it would be issued by the court before the next issue of Time was published. However, due to a delay in the decision's release, the text of the decision appeared on newsstands a few hours before it was published by the court."

Does this contradict the statement in Section 5.11 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that, "The release of a draft opinion for a pending case is unprecedented in recent Supreme Court history?" Maybe "rare" would be a better description than "unprecedentied." The precedent appears to be from the very case whose decision Dobbs v. Jackson overturned.

The cases were a bit different. Hammond didn't exactly "release" the Roe draft decision. He gave it to a reporter "on background," probably a common practice, expecting the final decision to be announced before any story could be written about it. We still don't know who released the Dobbs draft decision or why.

I hope other editors will weigh in on whether the two incidents are equivalent, or at least comparable.

Solarham79 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Solarham79

Court Case Task Force
I added the template for WikiProject Current events/Court Case Task Force. That's because Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is a current court case, and is highly significant for overruling both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Breastone (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

the actual vote was NOT 6-3 or 5-4; it was 5-1-3
Roberts, via concurrence, joined the judgment, but not the decision to overturn Roe; but he also did not join the dissent. The ruling is 5-1-3
 * Quoting the ruling itself [Page 8]: "ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion."
 * Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not think the details belong in the lead. However, I think that the fact the Supreme Court declared Roe v. Wade was "overturned" should be in the first sentence. The fact that the decision may no longer be binding is one of the most important details about it. TFD (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Roe was not overturned. It was overruled, which the main article correctly states at the time of this writing. MainePatriot (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Add a template message to the page
Aquavison (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Add to the page due to everything going on right now Aquavison (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see related talk section above . The tag has already been added to the relevant section but it's not needed at the top which would suggest it applies to the entire topic. --N8wilson 18:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2022
"In 1868, abortion was not legal before quickening in 27 out of all thirty-seven states."

I ask that the use of the word "not" be re-examined and verified. It seems to me, intuitively, that its inclusion is a mistake. It makes no sense to me that the abortion was legal in the 27 states after quickening and illegal before. It just seems like it would have been the opposite, ie legal before quickening and illegal afterwards.

2600:1700:2FD0:C780:10BC:CB3:B876:24E6 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC) 2600:1700:2FD0:C780:10BC:CB3:B876:24E6 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2022 (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. Specifically, please propose the alternate wording for the statement in question as WP:EDITXY directs. Alternatively, you could remove the edit request and present this concern as an open discussion for feedback/comments from other editors. --N8wilson 19:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Mention of assassination attempt on Kavanaugh and subsequent violence related to Roe?
The article seems to (intentionally?) omit major developments related to the overturning. Would it not be relevant to mention that a judge involved in the case was the target of an attempted assassination in an effort to interrupt the vote, or the notable reactions from both sides (violence, false claims of "illegitimacy", calls to defy the ruling, celebrations, attacks on pregnancy centres etc?) I feel like these details would add significant context to the case and must be included for clarity.

After all, the article already mentions that Roe is/was a significant factor in social and political differences in the country. It seems the aforementioned details would be relevant to that point.

2001:8003:3A5A:7E00:4074:659C:92E7:16FD (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The relevant place for that would be Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, not here. Endwise (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2022
in the passage:

"who argued argued that many 21st-century rights that are taken for granted, such as contraceptive, interracial marriage, and same-sax marriage"

change "same-sax" to "same-sex" because two saxophones have no right to marriage under US law 174.95.135.74 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

✅. Good catch! A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Roe vs Wade
Second "argued" should be removed. Also, the word "sax" should be changed to sex. 2604:2D80:B602:A00:C8B4:3914:AC56:1C88 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

✅ Thx. --N8wilson 15:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)