Talk:Types of abortion restrictions in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katieparada.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jcbarrett31. Peer reviewers: Lilydougherty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 23 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shalexis97, Claudiadatnow. Peer reviewers: Map082.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion columns used as "reliable sources" for "objective facts"
The article makes numerous slanted statements of supposed facts by far too heavily relying on opinion columns. A start to solving this problem would be to give in-line attribution to the sources of clearly opinionated statements. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Abortion clinic regulations: removed references
Four references I provided for this section have been challenged and removed (diff). I believe all four references are reliably sourced, relevant, and necessary, and should be restored. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) AUL's expertise on legislation restricting abortion is established in both the MJ and TNR references. The AUL reference identifies a prominent adherent of the currently missing viewpoint that these laws are intended to promote safety.
 * 2) ACOG is an opinionated but reliable source on the topic of the safety of abortion procedures. ACOG is cited as an expert on abortion safety by Guttmacher, and at least one article on abortion safety in ACOG's journal is republished on PubMed. ACOG is also quoted as an expert by this Time article. The ACOG reference identifies a prominent adherent of the currently missing viewpoint that the laws' safety claim lacks a basis in science. Adding the Time reference in addition might be a good idea.
 * 3) NAF's expertise on abortion legislation is established in the MJ reference. NAF is also quoted as an expert by this CNN article. The NAF reference identifies a prominent adherent of the currently unsourced and unattributed viewpoint that these laws are intended to restrict abortions. Adding the CNN reference in addition might be a good idea.
 * 4) I cited Stulberg to clarify the claim that hospitals refuse admitting privileges to abortion providers. This claim is supported by only a brief mention in TNR's commentary that "many" hospitals in the South do so. The Stulberg reference states a reason why hospitals might refuse admitting privileges, and gives a percentage of hospitals that may be inclined to do so.


 * Rather than relying on self-published statements from organizations (even reliable professional organizations like ACOG, and certainly agenda-based organizations like AUL), we should do as we were previously doing, and rely on reliable secondary sources. What we could do is continue to lead with the existing reliably sourced statement, and then add later in the paragraph that proponents claim a public health purpose refuted by professional organizations, which seems to be supported by some of the news sources you've posted here. The Stulberg reference is not relevant since it's not about the subject of the article or the subject of the section; your statement that it should be included because it states a reason hospitals "might" refuse and a number that "may" be inclined suggests that you should read WP:SYNTH. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 12:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Except, of course, you are not relying on "reliable secondary sources," at least not sources that are reliable for ostensibly factual information on the subject. Per my earlier point above, Ros, you are erroneously relying on opinion pieces in opinion periodicals such as Mother Jones and the New Republic for what is presented to the reader as a fact that "these laws are aimed at closing abortion clinics." Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you don't think the sources are reliable, you should check with RSN. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't need to. Just consult WP:RSOPINION. It's an open and shut case. 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And where does this guideline identify these particular sources as opinion pieces, rather than reportage that may be coming from a particular viewpoint, just like Fox News? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Obvious opinion pieces (check the writing style); especially the New Republic article which, unlike the other, directly says the purpose of these laws is to shut down abortion clinics; published in what are open and unabashed political opinion periodicals. Fox News, in contrast, calls itself "fair and balanced" in its news reporting. If opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers according to WP:RSOPINION require in-line citations of authors' conclusions then all the more so such pieces in political opinion periodicals. By the way, if a Fox talking head said that the the purpose of such laws was to ensure the safety of patients rather than to encumber clinics, I think we would agree not to use it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC) PS: Did you know that Mother Jones herself, as opposed to the magazine, was adamantly anti-abortion? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting aside what I'm sure was meant as a humorous remark about Fox, there's an easy way to solve this: take it to RSN as I originally said. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As for Stulberg, thanks for notifying me of the potential SYNTH problem. Source A (TNR) says admitting privilege laws restrict abortions because some hospitals deny admitting privileges to abortion providers. Source B (Stulberg) says some hospitals revoke admitting privileges to abortion providers for religious reasons. Can you help me by specifying what "therefore C" original synthesis I made in this diff that is unsupported by sources A and B? I'll be happy to cite a source to support that "C" to resolve any SYNTH. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "therefore C" is the inclusion of the statement that some religious hospitals do not permit doctors to perform abortions and of the statistics on the number of religious hospitals. There is nothing in the Stulberg source related to the article topic. (note that she doesn't even mention admitting privileges, much less TRAP laws) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll concede that Roscelese has a point on WP:Synth, though it only pertains to the last sentence of his edit and he could probably produce a reliable source that neatly ties the abortion clinic laws to anti-abortion regulations at neighboring hospitals easily enough. As for the rest of his edit it is far preferable to Roscelese's because it treats the purpose(s) of the abortion clinic laws as a matter of subjective opinion rather than a matter of cold, hard fact to be resolved by musings in magazines of political opinion and then stated in Wikipedia's voice. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Roscelese, could you please explain your most recent partial revert claiming it was OR? Everything I wrote came directly from the cited source, and I'll be happy to quote directly instead of paraphrasing. I also see no problem with the relevance of reliability of the source, and even if I did, I don't see why reverting instead of improving is consistently your preferred option. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already explained that the sources need to demonstrate relevance to the article. If you need to explain why they're relevant, that's a hint that you're engaging in OR. The source doesn't refer at all to the legislation that is the subject of the article. Unless I've missed something present in the source? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't anticipate needing to explain how statistics on hospitals denying admitting privileges for abortion providers are relevant to laws requiring admitting privileges for abortion providers. I'm not sure there's anything more I can say that I haven't already, so I'd like to see other editors weigh in on how relevant the removed sentence and source (diff) are to the section. Maybe you're right and a different section or article would be a better home for this edit. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

20-week laws?
A number of states now have laws restricting abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization. Should the topic of 20-week laws be combined with the fetal heartbeat section, or perhaps get its own section? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm. Hard to decide. Some of the heartbeat bills don't seem to be time-based restrictions, and some of the time-based restrictions don't seem to be heartbeat-related...but then again, there is overlap. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on 20 week-bans that stands by itself. While these types of laws have a similar underlying purpose to fetal heartbeat laws, how they aim to achieve their purposes are very different paths. 72.69.113.51 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Origin of term?
Who originated the term "Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers"? It would be of interest. 178.39.190.161 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't this page titled "TRAP Laws"?
I noticed that when you type in "TRAP laws" the page redirects the user to this page. Is there a particular reason why the page is under this title when the content is clearly all about TRAP laws and is referred to as such? Has the title ever been "TRAP laws"? Thank you. 72.69.113.51 (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not called TRAP Laws because it contains other content, but that title redirects here because there's no separate article on TRAP Laws. Restrictions on abortion, other than these laws, exist, as the article explains. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Undefined refs
please fill in the many missing sources for the excerpt you added.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Will do, sorry about that. I'll add them to the lead in that article and add a comment about the lead being excerpted. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This should be fully fixed now. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Public Policy
— Assignment last updated by MarlaGuerra (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)