Talk:Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act

Factually Incorrect
This sentence:

The act explicitly defines pregnancy as beginning at the point of conception rather than at implantation into the uterine wall (see fertilisation), which could mean that H.B. 1215 applies to the abortifacient drug RU486.

is completely off-base, as RU468 is administered between 6 and 9 weeks. Doctors on the whole do not perform abortions between 6 weeks because is is far more difficult to tell if the abortion was successful. Could they be referring to emergency contraception or hormonal birth control instead, both of which are theorized to have inhibitory effects on implantation? Noabsolutes 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Errors Regarding Contraceptives
Actually, section 3 of the H.B. 121
 * "Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions."

seems to explicitly exempt contraceptives from the law. The article, however, states: "The act explicitly defines pregnancy as beginning at the point of conception rather than at implantation into the uterine wall (see beginning of pregnancy controversy), which could mean that H.B. 1215 applies to emergency contraception and possibly all forms of hormonal contraception." which seems to be inaccurate.

Additionally, a later sentence says that "If Roe is overturned, there are "trigger" provisions in H.B. 1215 which would instantly criminalize obtaining or providing abortions." However, there are actually no provisions that do that in H.B. 1215. Those provisions are actually in 2005 H.B. 1249, and they only prohibit providing abortions, *not* obtaining them. Josh 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the point above is moot, though, since H.B. 1215 prohibits providing abortions now and does not have a delayed effective date. In fact, the entire sentence in the article seems unnecessary as a result. Josh 06:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Very Nice Work
I am very, very impressed at how well this article has turned out. I'm the creator/original editor of this article, but I bailed on it early last year out of frustration with what I perceived as bias and intractability inherent with the Wikipedian process. Revisiting the final result months later, I see now that I gave up far too soon. My deep thanks to all contributors. Now, shall we bring this puppy on home? Struct 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Two proposals
I'd like to take everyone's pulse on the following:

1) I propose that the current talk page be archived. 2)  Given that this article seems to have been polished into a final draft, I propose some form of edit protection. Struct 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have archived the Talk page as requested. Regarding page protection, pages generally aren't protected against editing unless they are heavily vandalised, undergoing a major editorial dispute, or featured on the main page, although you may request page protection here. -Severa (!!!) 03:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also don't see this article as being anywhere near a final draft. It's very good, but it's a long way from Featured Article class, which is probably the closest thing to a "finished draft" on Wikipedia. -Severa (!!!) 03:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment
I have requested reassessment of this article from WikiProject Abortion and WikiProject South Dakota. Groupthink 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the assessment class for WikiProject South Dakota is "Stub" simply because the article has developed since the time when the S.D. project reviewed it — and the class has not been upgraded to reflect these subsequent improvements. As for WikiProject Abortion, the next class above "Start" is "B," and judging from Category:B-Class Abortion articles, I'm not sure that this article is at the same level of development as the current B-class Abortion articles. Those articles are longer than this one, have more sections exploring the topic in greater depth, and many of them feature an image. This article is well-structured, but, I think it can be developed a bit more, so I'd say it's one of the better examples of a Start-class Abortion article. I'll bring the S.D. class up to speed with the Abortion class, but I'm not so certain about raising the Abortion class. What specifically do you think makes this a B-class article? -Severa (!!!) 18:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it seemed comparable to the example B-class page given, but if you have your doubts, then I'll defer to your judgment. Groupthink 18:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot "revive" a dead law
This is an article on the history of the WHHLPA. That history ended with its repeal. Until new legislation is passed and references can be cited establishing that the WHHLPA was a direct antecedent of said legislation, saying that legislators are trying to "revive" the bill is POV language and more importantly is irrelevant to this article. Groupthink 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)