Talk:Roe v. Wade/Archive 1

Opinion of the Court?

This article features very little on the actual majority opinion of the court. Whats the deal? Someone should update it to include that. If no one else would like to, I can. However, section V of the opinion summarizes it up nicely if someone else would like to. It's a little bit disappointing that this article doesn't have it, considering this is one of the most important recent cases in American law.

Jcp20 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• This page is vandalised so often no one seemed to notice the actual substance of the decision was deleted. I've replaced it, but don't blink or it'll be gone! Caveat lector 00:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Content Box

Just something I noticed - I was comparing the 'Roe v. Wade' page with that 'Miranda v. Arizona' to see if the formatting was the same for both supreme court cases, when I noticed that on Miranda v. Arizona the content box showed as follows:

Contents [hide] 1 Background of the case 1.1 The Legal Aid Movement 1.2 Arrest and conviction 2 The Supreme Court's decision 2.1 Harlan's dissent 3 Effects of the decision 4 Subsequent history 5 Sources and further reading 6 External links

In Roe v. Wade, the first section is called 'History of the Case'. Is there any reason these are different? A minor matter, but I just thought I'd point it out. 67.162.149.163 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Plaintiff's name

The correct name of the main plantiff is "Jane Roe," not "Jane Doe" as mentioned in "Background of the case." --Nick 17:28, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons with Canada

''I've looked at the Abortion the US page and i'm really not sure what is better here and there...i'm going to copy the commment there too"--Marcie 23:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Hello. I'm a Cannuck that has done some changes on the page. Hope you don't mind...a course i took compared the Roe vs. Wade decision to the Canadian case, and i wanted to try and add in some of what we learned which was basically that your decision came a hell of a lot earlier than ours (in terms of decriminalizing...abortions were available in Canada somewhat earlier but only under an except under the criminal code that required a lot of things...see the abortion in Canada page for info (i'm still learning to link...not quite sure how to do that one). Since the most important part of the US ruling was regarding privacy, AND since the decision regarding trimesters was based on viability there are different results. Not that it would not be impossible to write an abortion law in Canada, it just impossible politically since the last one went down on a tie in the Senate and any party that passes such a law knows they aren't going to last long (POV but on a talk page ok i think?). Probably the fact that we have a multiparty system (4 parties at the moment) AND a minority governement at the moment(2004 June) , although its the first in 25 years. While only two parties have ever been the federal government, there has been difference on which party is the opposition and the dynamics are quite different.

Also, again from a Canadian standpoint, i don't understand why the different rules from state to state regarding abortion, medicade coverage for abortion and even using city or state water is not discussed. I've read of many strange ways that the rights have been restricted in the US including clinics being denied access to the water of an area thus having to dig a well...but then they aren't allowed to use the general sewage if they get the water. I would think the fact that medicade often doesn't cover abortion would be an issue of class access, something that we are trying to address on the Canadian abortion page.

I guess these are ramifications of the law? Would there be a more appropriate spot to discuss this (and leave you alone if its the wrong spot). I did add in the effect of the trimester part of the ruling but left the rest out so i could ask, and start a discussion before just posting it up---if i've got the right spot even. Looks good though...i'm sure it was contentious to write!--Marcie 23:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV??

I've read over this page, and I'm not exactly sure that it could qualify as NPOV. Consider this one sentence in particular:

"Abortion doctors have been the targets of harrassment and even murder by pro-life zealots who claim that by taking the life of an abortion doctor they are actually saving many fetus' lifes."

Whether or not I agree with those sentiments is irrelevant; it's not NPOV, and I suspect a lot of the rest of the article isn't, either. I'm also not sure that I could rewrite this article to BE NPOV. Thanks. --Fermatprime 12:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A lot of this page is in need of re-writing for bad grammar, inaccuracy, lack of information and NPOV correction. I have hesitated to put it on my To-Do list for the Supreme Court case WikiProject because it is a very controversial decision, but it has gotten too far out of hand now. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Skyler1534 13:52, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Intersting. I wrote the article (well the original) on doctors being shot for the Canadian page and the Roe. page. I deliberately put it under other saying it could not be the general position of the pro life movement to kill. Its stayed all right on the Canadian page...maybe people just change stuff less there. There was no mention of "zealots"...guess its a wiki thing eh?--Marcie 22:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bias

This page is really rather biased. It would be improved if the many x say this and many Y say that could be removed. But the main problem is structure. The focus on the 'aftermath' is on attempts to overturn the legislation. Should attempts to maintain the legislation and the various movements for this also be included.

I have tried to remove some of the overt evaluative claims such as legislation to overturn X is "being tied up" in court. Perhaps specific arguments should be removed: E.g., ending the first section with a large quote from Renquist is just overt (I have removed this).

I get the feeling that this is a page that is going to flip-flop a lot between fair an balanced to balanced one way or the other, but perhaps a good faith effort could be made to keep it neutral. [From IP address 151.141.67.24 on 14:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)]

The fact is that there were not many attempts made in the wake of Roe to pass pro-choice legislation. It is also a fact that Roe v. Wade sparked a huge backlash across the country. Whether or not you agree with that backlash is irrelevent to its POV. The focus on the subsequent history is appropriate because when people speak of "Roe v. Wade" they are often referring to the subsequent controversy and not the original decision.

However, I admit the article could previously be read as biased. I have done my best to be NPOV while making the article interesting. Therefore, I have changed the name of the section to "Controversy over Roe" and included mention of Roe supporters. I think the article is quite comprehensive and well-written at this point and would like to nominate it for featured article status. NP 05:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV link removed

"RoevWade.org" is an anti-abortion advocacy site that makes numerous substantive claims that are either plainly political POV or else hotly contested. To link to it as a resource on Roe v. Wade while not providing balancing links to pro-choice resources on Roe v. Wade is manifestly a violation of NPOV. If others feel that discussions by advocates are a good resource to link, then let them add it along with pro-choice advocacy sites that discuss Roe v. Wade and the surrounding legal framework; if not, then let both be removed in favor of NPOV legal information on the decision. Radgeek 03:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article should stand by itself and neither pro nor anti links to outside fundraising/political organizations (overt or not which is why I have deleted a picture that shows a web address from the page since it was less information than subtle if unintended advocacy of one pov over another)Awotter

I think a better solution than removing the pro-Roe photo would be to balance it with a photo of protesters opposing Roe, or better yet, find a single picture that shows both sides counter-demonstrating. That would highlight the strength of the controversy, and make the article pop out more as well. Just my opinion. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Major edits to "Abortion" section

I eliminated the title of "Abortion" since it really didn't make sense. The section is about a Supreme Court decision, not abortion itself.--Elizabeth 16:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The "Abortion" section under "The Supreme Court's decision" heading was overly brief and not quite correct. The decision itself was fairly lengthy and deserved more than a paragraph. I suspect the author of that section had a political bias since the dissent was also given an entire paragraph, even though it was about a tenth the size. I edited this page to put the Nov. 23 and Jan 9 discussions in chronological order. Pencil Pusher 06:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

• It should be noted that the above comment was by a know sockpuppet of a baned vandal, the vandal was baed from making extreme POV edits, see Captain Liberty (talk · contribs) and Cap. Freedom (talk · contribs) for refrence of some this users previous activity. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moral Clarity (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned JoeM (talk · contribs), and therefore the comments have been removed, --SqueakBox 17:08, May 2, 2005

•°•§°•°

Catholicism and Roe v. Wade

It should be noted that all, not many, Catholics are opposed to abortion. According to the teachings of the Church, it is the killing of a human being, and if one were to deny that, one would excommunicate himself and thereby no longer be a Catholic. Harboring thoughts of infanticide is a mortal sin.

• It's pretty obvious that not all self-identifying Catholics believe abortion is wrong, notwithstanding the official Vatican position, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the moment one deviates from official Church doctrine, one automatically ceases to be a Catholic, particularly considering how the Church hasn't itself actively excommunicated every Catholic who have supported abortion rights (including certain priests). See no true Scotsman. Postdlf 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I am a Catholic Son of an Irish ex nun, and I see abortion as being a bad thing, but necessary. Such swooping gereralism's are totally POV, and have no grounding. You may possibly say that "most" Catholics are opposed to abortion, though then I would like to see exact polls. I am here, however, to state that you are definitely wrong in stating "all, not many, Catholics are opposed to abortion", since I am Catholic, and I most definitely agree with Roe Vs Wade.

No offence intended, but what you mean is that you consider yourself Catholic. The Pope would disagree because of your views in this matter. Toby Douglass 10:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As for excomunication, if you were to research the subject, (as I have), you would realise that excomunication only comes under a certain number of prerequisites. None of the prerequisites include supporting abortion. The latest addition to the list does include "physically assaulting the pope", but there is nothing about abortion. I personally, would love to be excommunicated, but have been informed by my Priest, that my views alone are not enough to warrant excommunication. If I were to attack the Pope for example, I could be, but my views alone are not enough. Indeed, if abortion were enough to warrant excommunication, then merely wearing a condom would be enough, which would automatically excommunicate 99% of the worlds Catholics.

Why would abortion ever be necessary? And why would anyone want to be excommunicated (sheesh)? Doesn't excommunication mean you can't receive the sacraments? Hence wearing a condom (a sin since sex can't be separated from its reproductive, marriage-related purpose, and people shouldn't be treated as objects) does not mean you can't go to confession since the Church doesn't hold anything to be unforgiveable. Even formal excommunication (which is extremely rare, BTW) can be undone.

P.S. Supposedly, you used to have to get the Bishop to pardon an abortion, but that requirement has been lifted and passed to the general priests because of the exponential growth of its use (yuk).

Armslurp 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is worth noting that there is a difference between believing something is morally wrong and wanting it to be outlawed. For instance, the catholic church believes that masturbation is a sin worthy of eternal damnation. Even if you were the prudest of catholics I doubt you would want this outlawed because every 13 year old boy in the country would be locked up. Thus many catholic that do not believe abortion just be made illegal justify their stances on abortion by saying that they believe that it is wrong, but it is not something that should be illegal.

There's a difference in performing an action with full knowledge that it is wrong, and doing something out of immaturity and ignorance. Therefore, the guilt could be less if the person is too young to behave (see the Catechism, 2352). However, if you know sex is for making babies, and babies are better off with a mother and father (freely bound together by law to be monogamous), then why would you let it be legal to abort? It's taken as tacit approval of the action, sin of omission (although fear and such can decrease it). It's not normally considered wise to allow/approve such bad decisions, even if the goal is to keep the government out of your personal life. Abortion is never needed, and there's always a better alternative. God IS real (and loving, nice, perfect, kind, all-knowing, merciful), and without Him you can do nothing. If someone searches for and finds Him (or He finds you, like He did with St. Paul), they'll truly live a happier life. (BTW, been around any babies lately? They're hilarious!) Armslurp 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take this moment to remind folks that Wiki talk pages are for talking about the article, not talking about the subject of the article. This particular conversation has gone pretty far afield from the Wiki article.

Atlant 19:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I see your point (ugh, that's annoying but easier to read, at least). However, how can we add more important information to the article without discussing it? Maybe there should be a wholly separate article about this. Anyways, if you don't like it, delete it. I won't revert it (but someone else might).

Armslurp 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Inviolability" or "personhood" of the fetus

I changed the phrase "religious groups who believed very strongly in the inviolability of the fetus" to "religious groups who believed very strongly in the personhood of the fetus." Elizabeyth changed it back: [1], citing NPOV.

Why is this a NPOV problem? I'm not asserting anything about the personhood of the fetus. I'm simply trying to clarify what those religious groups actually believe. They believe that a fetus is a human being and should be entitled to the same rights and protections as any other human being. I believe using the word "inviolability" obfuscates what these groups believe.

Since my edit was not actually a POV problem, being properly contextualized and also being a true and accurate representation of what those religious groups believe, I am going to make the change again. I'll watch here on the talk page to see if anyone wants to point out an actual POV problem with the wording. Jdavidb 14:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV (or, as I typed it, "NVOP") summary was an error. I was going to rework something else, then decided to take this change first.

First of all, in all honesty, I just don't like the word "personhood". It's one of those forced words created to satisfy political correctness, and it just jumps out at you when you read it.

According to Wikipedia, "In philosophy, there have been debates over the precise meaning and correct usage of the word, and what the criteria for personhood are." That's in the article I linked to from the word personhood. Maybe you feel that the word has been crafted, but it's the word commonly in use. Wikipedia even has an article on Great ape personhood. This is in no way a word made up solely for the abortion debate. Jdavidb 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, I disagree that your characterization is a true and accurate representation of the beliefs of every religious group that opposes abortion. I find it hard to believe that they all think it's a "person"; it's a potential human life, but I can't imagine anyone successfully arguing that anything the size of a lentil is a person.

Please note Elizabeyth's argument; she "can't imagine" something, so therefore it must be false. If she is truly so incapable of dispassionate thought, she ought not to contribute to this article.

I think it's fairer to say that they all would agree it is inviolable; that is, it just shouldn't be messed with. "Inviolability" is a broader term and hence more accurate. Plus, the definition of "person" is a major point in the decision and its use here is confusing.

Note Elizabeyth's failure to understand that this is not an argument about legalistic word choice; it is a discussion about whether a group's views are represented correctly. I don't believe there is any significant element of "choice" involved in elective abortion; does this therefore mean that, like Elizabeyth, I can expunge the use of that word with respect to the so-called "pro-choice" groups? The hypocritical double-standard is breathtaking.

Would you consider "humanity" of the fetus? Elizabeyth 00:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why does your ability to imagine anyone successfully using the argument interfere with Wikipedia's need to report that people do use that argument? If you'll survey the pro-life literature, pretty much everyone is arguing for the personhood of the fetus, either from religious or scientific evidence. I'd say the burden is on you to find any evidence of a pro-lifer who argues in any other way. Personhood is the word nearly always used.

I don't think the word "inviolability" works as well in that sentence. Just saying they believe the fetus to be inviolable doesn't say why they believe that. Explaining they believe the fetus to be a person explains why.

I don't think it's confusing at all to use the term personhood there explaining in context that that's what many religious people say.

The word "humanity" would work, but the most commonly used word is "personhood." Why not report the arguments that people actually use? Jdavidb 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Inviolable doesn't mean shouldn't be messed with, it means can't be messed with. Clearly, that is not the case. The word you are looking for is sanctity.

Pencil Pusher 17:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so defensive of a single word. I have no counterargument. I just personally think it's not great writing. But hey, if it's what the religious groups use, then more power to them. Elizabeyth 21:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That must be it, Elizabeyth. It has nothing to do with representing the views of those who hold them; it's all about anal retentivity over the choice of a single word. I'm sure you have no such hangups. Pro-lifers are free to change every reference to "pro-choice" into "baby-killer", and you'll be perfectly okay with that.

As you are clearly incapable of taking a NPOV on this topic, you really ought to refrain from making any edits to it.

banned or significantly restricted in 46 states

I'd like to know what others think of this line from the article. The style guide Words to avoid advices to avoid representing statistics this way. I personally want to know how many states banned the practice altogether. Abortion in the United States says that 31 states allowed abortion to protect the mother's life only, 13 states had laws similar to Colorado's which was fairly liberal, and 2 more allowed abortion in limited instances. So, according to that article 46 states just restricted the practice. Where was it banned? --24.18.211.95 07:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree mostly with your point, I wouldn't call Colorado's laws fairly liberal. The Washington DC laws may have effectively been fairly liberal but the other laws were fairly restrictive from what I can tell Nil Einne 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"When life begins"

A phrase I've seen repeatedly in abortion discussions, and again in this article, is "when life begins" and variations thereof, as in "hotly debate when life actually begins". The phrase, in its various forms, seems to me to mean something quite different from what the authors are trying to convey. IMHO its poor use of language.

"When life begins" is an issue of ancient history, not contemporary conception. Life began in the magical moment of abiogenesis that preceded the lengthy evolutionary chain of events that led to us - or when a supernatural entity placed the first biengs on this earth, if that is more in line with your religious beliefs.

Its self evident that a sperm cell is alive, as is an egg. Thus, every stage of reproduction, including those prior to conception, is a part of the continuum of life stretching back to the first organisms.

What the authors of such phrases clearly wish to examine or comment on is when "personhood" or "humanity" begins. This is clear from the context of the phrase as used in the article. This concept is not at all the same as when "life" begins. If the language of the article reflects the actual language used by the US Supreme Court, I'm surprised that such an elevated group of erudite individuals would be so inarticulate. farrenh 01:10, 8 October 2005 (GMT+2)

Yes I agree. As a biologist, I always find it funny when people talk about when life begins. As for the question of personhood, I'm reminded of the words of a professor. Specifically how exactly abortion opponents who consider the single celled embryo formed upon fusion of the sperm and an egg a unique person the same as you and me explain what happens when the embryo splits giving rise to twins. Are these still a single unique person? Nil Einne 17:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I never thought of it that way.But since they share the same ginetics and things , in a way there are don't you think??? 3:26 PM Monday November 6th 2006 °•°§•°• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.113.104.69 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

You're equivocating on the meaning of the word "life" here. By that logic, saying that "life ends at brain death" would be just as nonsensical, since many of the body's cells are still alive at that point. Roughly speaking, "life" can mean either "the state of being alive" or "the period of existence of a living organism". Since the product of conception is clearly a different organism from the sperm and ovum, its "life" (in the second sense of the word) begins at conception. Miraculouschaos 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The eighth paragraph under "Abortion" contains a quote from the "Court" wherein they discussed how it was not necessary to pinpoint when life begins in order to render a verdict. The problem I have with that is mainly that there is no reference specifically citing the source of the quotation. Was it one Justice? Is it in the Roe v. Wade Court document?

Secondly, I think the words of Peter Singer are interesting in this context. In Wikipedia's Peter Singer entry, there is a distinction made between "zoological life" and the kind of life which has meaning and value. In his book about President Bush (of Good and Evil?) (which I've read), Mr. Singer says that there is no wiggle room for whether or not a fetus fits the definition of biological life; it definitely is alive. Also there is no serious debate about whether it is human; the DNA is definitely homo sapiens DNA, and of course the human fetus is human. By the fetus stage, it is definitely an individual human life. The real debate in Roe v. Wade and in society is about whether this human life is worth protecting when the mother chooses to abort the pregnancy, and about whether or not this human life merits legal personhood.

I have wanted to include somewhere the different opinions about life beginning at conception (reasons given for opposing Plan B and the destruction of embryos, considering those practices types of abortions as well), vs. the idea of a separate human life needing to meet certain criteria such as independence, adapted to a particular environment (outside the womb), or human traits such as being able to feel pain, having consciousness, having memory, or the ability to reason. The first opinion meets the biological and scientific definition of life, whereas the second group is much more a philosophical or legal or political or social perspective. Neither of these categories is really a religious issue, but a religious issue might include something such as whether the fetus has a soul, or whether the fetus is a person in God's eyes, or simply what God's law has to say about it. (I don't know where an addition like this would fit into Wikipedia, but I think it is worth having somewhere surrounding this whole abortion issue, along with some kind of link to Pete Singer's observation.)

There is no way to take morality out of law, since every law is based on some moral principle. I thought the Wikipedia article was lacking in mentioning the controversy over whether morality should have a bearing in law, but upon further reflection, this is definitely the way a lot of Americans talk about it, apparently ignoring the obvious truth that every law is a type of moral statement.

Shrommer 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over abortion

Are there any thoughts over the final two sentences in the first paragraph of this section? (That is, the part starting "Some abortion opponents have claimed that there exists a link between abortion and breast cancer...") To me it seems to inappropriately highlight controversial claims of one side without providing any counterbalance or even a mention of the fact that these claims are not generally accepted. I hesitate to insert qualifying statements myself if someone out there with more competence to evaluate competing medical claims wants to make a stab at it. David 08:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about making the following edit to the sentence. In addition to the subtle slant about breast cancer that I see, the sentence itself is awfully cumbersome and too long, in my opinion.

Some abortion opponents have claimed that there exists a link between abortion and breast cancer, and Texas has enacted a law requiring literature advancing this theory be distributed to women considering abortion. However, the National Cancer Institute (a division of the U.S. National Institutes of Health) advises that the available medical research does not support this conclusion at this time [2]. More credibly abortion has been linked to some psychological problems and to a higher risk of future infertility [3].

I'm kind of new to this, so I'm not sure about the advisability of in-line external links. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm completely open before I make the edits. David 05:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes since there seemed to be activity on the page, and there were no objections to the above text. The only changes I made to the above were very minor or were made to retain the existing Wiki links in the text. David 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The Controversy section appears heavily biased towards the "pro-life" camp. Someone should edit in a more detailed presentation of the "pro-choice" arguments, to even it out. - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Roe decision itself was a "pro-choice" decision, and therefore controversy about it would tend to be from the "pro-life" direction. However, we have tried to even things out by including views from liberal legal scholars who are pro-choice. If you have particular changes that you think we should make, then please share them with us here at the discussion page. Thanks.Ferrylodge 04:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon vs. as early as

I'm inclined to change back the edits made by 128.187.179.214. While all parties participating in the debate might be characterized as believing that life begins "as early as" conception, the sentence as it currently stands refers specifically to the Pro-Life position. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of this group believes instead that life begins upon conception. I can try to dig up cites for this if there's any feeling that this is not the case. I'll hold off making the relevant changes until tomorrow evening to see if there's any community dissent. Thanks David 03:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"fetal life" to "fetal human life"

This is a necessary clarification given the definition of "fetus". Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with allowing the abortion of fetal canine life or fetal bovine life, rather only fetal human life. Nor does the pro-life community concern itself with protecting the "fetal life" of any mammals other than humans. Hence the clarification. This is about as NPOV as can get, given that the unnecessarily latinized term "fetal" seems to be a must-have to those favoring choice in regard to abortion. -- Chris 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your modifcation, you seem to be missing the point. The fetus is a common medical and scientific term used all the time. It is not some odd latin term. The word is important (as is the word human) because we are talking about a fetus here. Nil Einne 17:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Another criticism of Roe (though not one made by the dissenters) is that the majority opinion failed to recognize the personhood of fetal human life, either beginning at conception or later" While it's true that the ruling did not "recognise the personhood..." etc, surely "failed" implies that they should have done so and that the personhood of fetal human life is not in question? Baggabagga 12:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Roe's role in subsequent decisions and politics

The use of 'explicitly' as applied to the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenhood v. Casey struck me oddly. I checked the definition:

1: Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. 2: Fully and clearly defined or formulated: “generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit”(www.dictionary.com)

1 a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films> 2 : fully developed or formulated <an explicit plan> <an explicit notion of our objective> 3 : unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave> (Merriam-Webster, www.m-w.com)

In this instances, and based on Wikipedia's own page on PP v. Casey, I don't think Roe was 'explicitly upheld' in that decisions. Barring objections, I've removed it.

Updates since the Alito Confirmation

I made a small change to eliminate what I perceived as a bit of bias. The sentence that once read:

"With the changes to the Supreme Court that have occurred recently (the death of William Rehnquist in 2005, the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, and their replacement on the Court by John Roberts and Samuel Alito respectively in 2005 and 2006), it remains to be seen whether the current interpretation of Roe will hold much longer."

Now reads: "...it remains to be seen whether the current interpretation of Roe will continue to hold." The original structure seems to imply that the Roe decision is close to being overturned and, more subtly, that it should be overturned. I believe my revision is more objective. ---Bryan Jones

Isn't it axiomatic that all supreme court decision are subject to review and at risk of being overturned by some future court? So if this paragraph is going to be a mini-civics lesson, maybe it should be more timeless, something like: "Roe, like all Supreme Court decisions, will always be periodically revisited with the possibility of being overturned. As the personality of the court changes over time, it remains to be seem whether the current interpretations in all decisions will continue to hold." --JJLatWiki 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

partial-birth abortion - impacted

I was horriffied when I found out what partial-birth abortion meant. And now, I am really glad that case Roe v. Wade affected that case. (Add your opinions)

Dissenting opinions

For all the controversy over this page no analysis appears to be given to the dissenting opinions. Surely the point of an encyclopedic article is not just to quote the text of a decision! Caveat lector 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I once read that Justice Ginsburg considered Roe v Wade to be bad law. Seeing as how she is a strong supporter of abortion rights and would not seek to overturn the decision, I've been fascinated by this. Her opinions would be pretty obviously unbiased, seeing as how she is criticizing something she believes in, or at least would present a far more unbiased opinion than those who find abortion personally repugnant. I came to this article looking for some of the more reasoned and objective constitutional objections to Roe v Wade and came away disappointed. The bits about there being nothing specific in the constitution about it doesn't satisfy me. I'd like to learn about the specific arguments brought by each side of the case and why objective thinkers feel the state's case was the stronger.

Anyone can improve the article. Just keep in mind WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Xiner (talk, email) 00:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wade

As someone who had never known the intracacies of this case, I looked to this article for the details. However, I find it disturbing that after reading through the "History of case" section, just who Wade is is unclear. I had to go to the side info box to even find a wiki-link to read about him. However, even that article doesn't make it overly clear what his role was in the case. After using Wikipedia for over a year, this is the first time where it looks like I will have to go elsewhere to research the subject. Quite disappointing. JPG-GR 05:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I second this. While the plaintiff's role in the case is stated quite clearly, the defendant's is not. Anyone with knowledge on the subject care for a rewrite? —Brim 08:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars

I reverted the entire article bacj to a version from Nov 29th today (December 2), because in a series of edit wars where folks diligently tried to revert delet vandalism, several sections were lost. I don't believe I removed any legitimate edits, but if I have, let's get them back in and keep this article stable? Brad 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link

I removed the following broken link:

• The Logical Shambles of Roe v. Wade, A Critical Analysis

Brad 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

section on liberal criticism of Roe vs. Wade

First of all, someone remove the above "edit." It makes a mockery of wikipedia's attempts at un-biased information and is generally unhelpful. Secondly, I found the section on Ginsburg and other liberals' criticisms of the Roe decision to be very interesting but worded somewhat sneakily:

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and other liberals such as Massachusetts congressman John F. Tierney and editorial writer Michael Kinsley, have criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade as terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which they contend might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights."

The obvious area of concern is the section "terminating a nascent" because this wording is so closely tied with the actual act of abortion. This wording could have various negative effects on the neutrality of the article and seems unnecessary, perhaps even employed as a rhetorical device. I would change the wording myself but because it is possible that Ginsburg, other noted individuals and many liberals in general have used similar wording in their disapproval of the Court's decision, that is, the type of wording that creates a connection between the act of abortion and the act of abandonment of a democratic movement, my assertion that "terminating a nascent" is creating a bias might not be entirely true as it could very well be the type of phrase used by these specific advocates. It's even possible this wording was used by accident and with no intended bias or reference to the act of abortion.

If anyone wants to find out more about this and make the appropriate edit, that would be great. If I find the time I'll invest a little energy into it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2headedboy (talk • contribs)

Deleting Sections on Cancer and Crime

In the "see also" section, there are links to Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis and Legalized abortion and crime effect. I think these links are adequate, and we don't additionally need sections in this article on those subjects. This article is about a court case in 1973, and those two subjects are extremely tangential to the subject of the article.

If no one objects, I'll go ahead and delete those two sections.Ferrylodge 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Abortion is the proper place for such things, if at all. Xiner (talk, email) 00:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they belong in the See also section, but rather in Abortion, which I'll add to the list. Xiner (talk, email) 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

This article is currently undergoing review to determine if it still meets the criteria for a "featured article." You can provide input. Personally, I think the article is in good shape.Ferrylodge 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

specifics of texas law

Is there a place for the fact that the texas law did not make it a crime for a woman to perform an abortion on herself. It did not make it a crime to seek an abortion from a doctor. It was not a crime to have an abortion. It was a crime for a doctor to perform the abortion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevorhughdavis (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I modified the "holding" on the right side of the page, so that it clarifies: "Texas laws making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy."Ferrylodge 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Citicat

Ferrylodge, why do you have a problem with a listing of current polls in a section (saying polls are "problematic") when yesterday you had no problem listing a six-year old poll as a source in the same section? I'm attempting to take a WP:NPOV, suggest you do the same or work on an article you do not have a personal feeling for. Citicat 14:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have just inserted a subtitle here, because your comment is not related to specifics of the Texas law. Second, I have reverted your recent deletion of a large portion of the article, which you did without any discussion, and for no apparent reason.

Regarding your question, I did previously revert an edit you made. I exaplained in the edit summary that the edit was not well-written (e.g. the word "while" was used twice in one sentence, the word "majority" was misspelled, and only one of the two words "Supreme Court" was capitalized).

I also said in the edit summary that "Poll questions on Roe are problematic, and are in "Public Opinion" section." I did not say that all polls are problematic. There is a whole section in this article devoted to polls about Roe. If you would like to discuss polls about Roe, then why not do so in the section on that subject? That section discusses the poll questions asked, and gives poll results dating back to 1973. Your edit did not mention any particular poll, and instead vaguely cited a bunch of different polls.

I also stated in the edit summary that the section you were editing "Already says large majority support legality of some abortions." How can there be any kind of NPOV problem if the section you were editing already says that a large majority supports abortion rights? You were actually proposing to delete the word "large", so it seems very peculiar for you to suggest that I have some sort of NPOV issue here.Ferrylodge 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are misspellings, then the appropriate action is to correct the spelling, not to remove the edit. By the way, you just made a misspelling "I exaplained in the edit summary" but still, I'm not going to remove your comment. I didn't say that you claimed all polls were problematic, I stated that you removed a link to polls in the same section where you posted a poll the previous day, and used that as reasoning. Your poll link did not mention it was a poll from 2000, you weren't using it as historical context, but as current opinion. The word "large" can be said to be NPOV itself. What majority is a large majority? Meanwhile, you still don't address the main issue, that you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Citicat 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to drop out of this discussion now, while you may feel I'm attempting to take the other side of the abortion discussion, I'm actually just trying keep articles adhering to Wiki guidelines. Good luck on your future editing. Citicat 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While you may feel that I am using Wikipedia as a "soapbox", I am trying to keep articles neutral and factual according to Wiki guidelines. I don't think your criticisms are supported. The portion of the article to which you objected is as follows:

"Also, a large majority of Americans believe that, while some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester.<FN>

<FN>Rubin, Allisa. 'Americans Narrowing Support for Abortion,' Los Angeles Times (2000-06-18). Retrieved 2007-02-02. (Reporting that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men.)"

The link after the word "large" provides poll results from 2003, which is not ancient history. The footnote specifically says that the article is from "2000-06-18." If you're asserting that the word "large" is an NPOV problem, then are you saying that I have a pro-choice bias? Before you said I have a pro-life bias. So, while I appreciate your interest, I do not think that I have been using Wikipedia as a soapbox.Ferrylodge 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

JPerkins

Regarding a recent edit by jperkins, the edit had two parts. The first part of the edit was to delete the following material from the article:

"Also, a large majority of Americans believe that, while some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester.<FN>

<FN>Rubin, Allisa. 'Americans Narrowing Support for Abortion,' Los Angeles Times (2000-06-18). Retrieved 2007-02-02. (Reporting that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men.)"

The edit summary says, "cited source does not support proposition." The cited source says, among other things, that 65% of people believe abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the second trimester. Why is it not proper to conclude that a large majority believes Roe v. Wade went too far? I will restore the deleted material for the time being, but without the word "large" (which may be ambiguous). Incidentally, jperkins, have you read the cited article by Alissa Rubin? Have you clicked on the wikilink in the material you deleted?

The second part of the edit added the following sentence in the "Public Opinion" section:

"A pro-choice counterargument, however, is that a portion of the 47% answering the question in the negative might have done so believing that a woman's right to an abortion should extend beyond three months."

The explanation left at my talk page was: "As a matter of logic, the same logic pro-life group uses to attack statistics applies to pro-choice arguments. That is an encyclopedic fact." I do not understand what is meant by these two sentences, and would appreciate elaboration. Wikipedia's job is to states facts, not make arguments. Prior to the edit, this article did not say what the 47% did believe or didn't believe. Has this counter-argument been made in any sort of publication? This article is not supposed to make arguments or counter-arguments. This statement about a hypothetical pro-choice counter-argument should include a footnote or else it is not neutral.

Additionally, here is the poll question to which 47% responded negatively:

"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?"

I would find it very difficult to believe that anyone would have responded negatively to this question because they believed that abortion should be legal for more than the first trimester. Just because someone supports one part of the Roe v. Wade decision (legalizing abortion during 1st trimester) does not imply that they don't support another part too (legalizing abortion during 2d trimester). In any event, absent some citation to some source that makes this far-fetched argument, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to make this argument all by ourselves. So, I'll revert the recently added sentence, for the time being.Ferrylodge 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As for my first edit, the wikilink does not link to the full text of the article, but rather an article abstract. Citing to an abstract is, I believe, disingenuous when the underlying principle of wikipedia objectivity is massive peer review.

As for my second edit, first, it must be understood in the context of the paragraph it edited. The paragraph stated that "49 percent [of poll respondents] now support Roe vs. Wade." The next two sentences read in conjunction with each other suggest that "pro-life groups" assert the poll results are inaccurate because poll asked respondents to opine about "Roe vs. Wade" without specifically asking about late-term abortions. My edit emphasized that the implied argument of these two sentences regarding the poll results can support both sides of the issue.

Second, regarding my lack of citations, I think we need to distinguish between empirical and analytical propositions. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to state without citation that "pro-life groups have argued" something, because their arguing something is observable in the real world. Surely, however, it is appropriate to state that 1 + 1 = 2 without citing a source in support. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic#Addition_.28.2B.29. The statement that the logic of a given argument can be used against the proponent of the argument falls into this latter category of propositions. So long as the statement is presented objectively, it remains faithful to the wikipedia's encylopedic nature. Indeed, presenting one analytical argument without presenting the corresponding oppositing argument violates NPOV. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view ("The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one.").

Finally, when I checked the Article's history, I noticed that comments exist below your revisions that do not exist in the article's text. How do you comment like that? Jperkins683 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As to the first edit, the "wikilink" links here. That's separate from the footnote, which you correctly note links to an abstract of an LA Times article. The abstract allows people to pay a small fee to read the full article. The material in the deleted sentence ("Also, a large majority of Americans believe that, while some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester") is supported by either the "wikilink" or the footnote. I agree with you that it's useful to support statements by using material that is available on the internet. However, this is not a requirement. For example, see the abortion article, footnotes 14-16, 34, 36, and 55. In any event, the wikilink (which links here) does provide footnotes to stuff that is available on the internet for free, if you’d rather not pay for the LA Times material.

As for your second edit, the paragraph in the article did NOT originally state that "49 percent [of poll respondents] now support Roe vs. Wade." Instead, it stated that Harris says so: i.e. “the Harris organization concluded from this poll that ‘49 percent now support Roe vs. Wade.’” Big difference. The point that the pro-life groups were making is that Harris was jumping to conclusions, and incorrectly stating what people think about Roe v. Wade when in fact the poll only dealt with one particular portion of Roe v. Wade.

You could argue that Harris was correct to conclude from their poll that 49% support Roe, even though the poll only asked about PART of Roe, but that would be a far-fetched argument, and no one (to my knowledge) has ever made it. Instead, you argue that pro-life groups have said the 47% (who answered the Harris Poll in the negative) all opposed abortion in the first trimester. But when did the pro-life groups say that? You acknowledge that it would be inappropriate to state without citation that "pro-life groups have argued" something, but isn’t that what you have done? The paragraph in question merely implies that (according to pro-life groups) Harris should not have jumped to a conclusion about Roe by asking about only part of it.

You are correct that it is appropriate to state that 1 + 1 = 2 without citing a source in support. But you are saying something that is not anywhere as clear as 1+1=2. Your second edit implied two things: (1) pro-life groups assert that the entire 47% opposes abortion in the first trimester, and (2) pro-choice groups would argue that some of that 47% actually favored the part of Roe that allows first trimester abortions. Neither of those two conclusions is as obvious as 1+1=2 (and I find the second conclusion more implausible than the first). So, it seems to me that cites would be needed for both of these two statements. Aren't they both statements that you were trying to make?

You are correct that presenting one analytical argument without presenting the corresponding opposite argument violates NPOV. But where has anyone but yourself presented the conflicting views (1) and (2)? If an article about Greenland says it has a cold climate, there is no obligation to present the conflicting view that it is packed with palm trees, unless perhaps someone credible has made that argument. I’m not saying that points (1) and (2) are quite as outlandish as that, but still they ought to be supported by some kind of evidence.

Regarding your last question, I’m not sure I understand the question. In the Article's history, whenever someone makes an edit, comments can be inserted in the edit summary. Your most recent comments in the edit summaries were: “added to discussion of statistical poll” and “cited source does not support proposition.” Since you were already able to comment like that, I’m not sure what you’re still asking how to do.Ferrylodge 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your comment about my first edit, I see now that the wikilink points to another page with sources. I do not have time to check those citations right now. The LA Times abstract does NOT state "that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men," as does the footnote's parenthetical.

As to the second edit, we agree that the paragraph states that "[t]he point that the pro-life groups were making is that Harris was jumping to conclusions, and incorrectly stating what people think about Roe v. Wade when in fact the poll only dealt with one particular portion of Roe v. Wade." That is, the group concluded that, possibly, more than 47% of people do not support Roe v. Wade, but the survey does not reflect that because of the wording of its questions. My edit demonstrated that, similarly, USING THE SAME REASONING, it's POSSIBLE that more than 49% of people support Roe v. Wade: People MIGHT not support its "first three months" holding because they'd prefer, e.g., a "first six months" holding. The poll does not reflect this possibility because of the wording of its questions. This is not an argument. It is a valid proposition about the LOGIC, not the SUBSTANCE of the pro-life groups' argument. Not only did I state this proposition objectively, rather than adversarily, but my presenting it counterbalanced the otherwise onesidedness of the paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jperkins683 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I have edited the footnote in the article referring to the LA Times. The footnote now quotes the LA Times directly. I hope that will be viewed as an improvement. I'll get to your second point momentarily.Ferrylodge 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, the article presently says, "Pro-life groups assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion." That seems to be the sentence that is causing trouble here. You're drawing an inference from this quoted sentence that the pro-life groups view the poll as proving more than 47% opposition to Roe v. Wade, and you're also supposing that pro-choice groups would claim Harris was not misreporting. I still think you're over-reaching, and doing so without any citations to support yourself. Maybe the pro-life groups view the Harris poll as inconclusive, rather than as underestimating opposition to Roe. Maybe the pro-choice groups would view it as unlikely that a person would say they oppose the part of Roe allowing first trimester abortions, even while that person supports the legality of first trimester abortions. At present, this Wikipedia article does not say how those groups view those matters.

Having said all that, perhaps a small edit would eliminate this whole problem. If you like, we could amend the offending sentence so that it says, "Critics assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion" instead of "Pro-life groups assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion." What do you think about that?Ferrylodge 02:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the LA Times Poll, the cited abstract does not state that 72% of women and 58% of men, totaling 65% of respondents, do not support late term abortions. Moreover, even if the abstract did state those numbers, I think it is biased to include in the main text the number for women (which is the highest) rather than the number for all respondents.

As for the second issue, I think you offer a fair compromise. I would modify it to read "Critics on both sides of the issue assert that the media often misreport polls on abortion." (Note "misreport" as being in the plural.) I would either (1) add at the end of the sentence a footnote containing the current note 34 as well as a link to this discussion, or (2) add a link to this discussion after "both sides of the issue" and use current note 34 at the end of the sentence. I think this should suffice until a citation to a pro-choice criticism of the statistics can be found. What do you think? Jperkins683 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was particularly biased to only mention the 72% of women in the text, and only mention the 58% of men in the footnote. Men and women are, after all, situated a little bit differently regarding the abortion issue. Nevertheless, I have no problem sticking the 58% number into the text too. I've just done so.

Regarding the other issue, discussion pages are not adequate sources for article footnotes. Therefore, I would object to the phrase "on both sides." Other than that, your proposal looks okay.Ferrylodge 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The 58% statement would be fine if the abstract mentioned that number, which it does not. I would add "both sides" to the sentence, then in the citation, write "See, e.g., [content of current footnote]." Alternatively, you could add "citation needed" after "both sides." I presume you would prefer one of these options rather than my original edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jperkins683 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I have edited the article to change "Pro-life groups" to "Critics". This is actually a more appropriate edit than I realized at first. If you go to the footnote, and read the linked press release of a pro-life group, it in turn links to opinions from various journalists agreeing that polls have been misreported.

However, I have not seen any evidence at all that any pro-choice groups have agreed that polls about Roe have been misreported. I see absolutely nothing wrong with footnoting the press release from the pro-life group. I suppose we could use the opinions from the various journalists instead of the opinion of the pro-life group, but the pro-life group would still appear in the linked URL, so I hardly see the point. If you find that any pro-choice group has asserted that Roe polls have been misreported, then we can add that to the footnote.

Regarding the linked abstract, the abstract is linked so that people who doubt the veracity of the direct quote can pay less than four dollars to confirm its veracity. Wikipedia has zillions of perfectly acceptable footnotes that don't even do that much; i.e. they provide no link at all, and instead just cite to some library book or other source that is not available via internet. I already gave you some specific examples of such Wikipedia footnotes at the abortion page. Could it perhaps be a POV problem that you're objecting to this footnote, and not to those zillions of other footnotes?

P.S. I've also changed "misreports" to "misreport". Can we call it a night?Ferrylodge 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded this controversial sentence based on [4]. The previous version was simply incorrect. They poll specifically asked what the respondents felt about Roe v. Wade, and a majority said they thought it was good for the country. It is original research to assume that the 2nd trimester disapproval translates to RvW disapproval. I have reworded the section to more accurately reflect the actual poll numbers. -Andrew c 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to rewording the sentence in question so that it reflects the footnoted and linked material as accurately as possible. However, I am not sure that it is useful to bring in additional subjects that have not been identified as controversial by this article, such as “third trimester” abortions. This article already says that, according to Roe, “the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester….” If that is true, then I don’t see how public opinion about third trimester abortions has any relevance to controversy about Roe, in this article. Mentioning third trimester abortions here is not only of questionable relevance; it also obscures the fact that the cited and linked polls asked specifically about second trimester abortions, without blending together “second and third trimesters” in the poll questions or poll results.

Prior to the most recent edits by Andrew C., the sentence in question said this:

“Also, a majority of Americans believe that, while some abortions should be allowed, Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester.”

Following the most recent edits by Andrew C., the sentence in question says this:

“While a majority of Americans believe that abortions performed in the second and third trimesters should generally be illegal, they also believe first trimester abortions should generally be legal, and a more narrow majority felt that the Roe v. Wade decision was good for the country.”

Because mentioning third trimester abortion is of questionable relevance, and because it obscures the results for second trimester abortions, and because no reason was provided for bringing up poll results about the third trimester, I will edit the sentence to read as follows:

“While a majority of Americans believe that abortions performed in the second trimester should generally be illegal, they also believe first trimester abortions should generally be legal.”

As you can see, I have also deleted the last phrase about poll results on Roe. There is a section of the article devoted specifically to polls about Roe, and discussing problems with those polls. I think discussion about Roe poll results belongs in that section, where the poll questions can be specifically quoted. The way I have edited the sentence in question, I don’t think there can be the slightest cause to say it is incorrect, or unsupported by the cited and linked material.

Incidentally, I think the sentence was also fine the way it was prior to Andrew C's edits. The cited sources say, among other things, that 65% of people believe abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the second trimester. Why is it not proper to conclude that a large majority believes Roe v. Wade went too far? That's not original research, it's simple logic. Anyway, the matter should be moot now.Ferrylodge 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your changes are acceptable. I can understand how adding 3rd trimester can seem irrelevant and confusing (as to what the question was being asked). I added the information not considering those thing, thinking it was helpful to include more information about the majority opinion (according to that poll). I will explain a little more about why your previous wording was problematic. You said that "a majority of Americans believe that... Roe went too far by allowing abortion in the second trimester". The question was not on the public's opinion of the Roe decision, but was on their opinion regarding legality during different trimesters. The same poll asked a question concerning the public's opinion on Roe, and a slim majority of the respondents said that Roe was "good for the country". So to say that a majority of America believe that Roe went to far, while also saying that a majority of America believe Roe was good for the country seems confusing. Since the former was a product of your rationalization and the latter was a product of the poll in question, I tend to rely on the polls findings. And speaking of polls, I think its worth mentioning in the polls section that basically every poll that asked a similar question on [5] got a different result than the Harris Poll. I'm not saying remove the Harris Poll, just add a few other examples in that section (and perhaps cut down on the commentary about the Harris Poll). I mean, what's up with that sentence "Roe decided that a woman can get an abortion for any reason, without regard to what her doctor advises".-Andrew c 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, you say, "The same poll asked a question concerning the public's opinion on Roe, and a slim majority of the respondents said that Roe was 'good for the country'." That's just not correct. Here's what the LA Times article said about public opinion on Roe:

"43% of current survey respondents express support for Roe, compared with 56% in 1991....In a 1996 poll, 46% of respondents endorsed Roe vs. Wade. By 1999, support had slipped slightly to 43%, the same level as in the current poll."

43% is not a majority. And I might add that the 43% figure indicates LOWER support for Roe than was indicated in the Harris poll. If you want to expand the section on public opinion, will you include these LA Times results showing lower support for Roe? I urge you to present suggested revisions in the discussion section first, because this whole article has just been through a featured article review in which these matters were carefully considered, not to mention the recent edits made in cooperation with jperkins. Also, if additional Roe poll results are going to be included, then the poll questions would have to be presented as well, and I see little purpose in presenting further poll questions that are equally or more slanted than the Harris Poll question.Ferrylodge 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have access to the LA Times article (I have access to a large number of university resources, included Lexis-Nexis, but I cannot access this article, without paying). Sorry for the confusion, I understand that the reference is pointing to the LA Times abstract, but I was under the (apparently false) impression that numbers were coming from the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003 that found "In the second three months of pregnancy" legal-25%, illegal-68%. This is completely my mistake, because I clicked on the "majority of Americans believe" link and confused the sources used there with the sources used here. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll is the one that has the question specifically about public opinion of Roe, with 53% saying it was a good thing for the country. The sentence is ok as it is now, so I'll let that issue go. As for the Harris Poll, there are good things and bad things about it. They have the best record for asking the same question for year after year back till the 70s. On the other hand, you point out that the phrasing of the question is controversial if not misleading, so maybe it wouldn't hurt to mention some polls that are more straight forward is all that I am saying (that, and a large number of polls have different results than the Harris Poll).-Andrew c 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I'm kind of surprised you can't get the LA Times article on Lexis. If you have a credit card and can afford the $3.95 fee, you can get the full text via the link in the footnote.

Anyway, it may at first seem like some other poll question about Roe is more straightforward than the Harris poll question, but it really takes a lot of digging to find out for sure. Consider the Harris poll itself. If you go here, you’ll find no hint that the poll question was slanted regarding the decision-making role of doctors, because they only divulge part of the poll question. To get the full Harris poll question, you have to go here.

So, you may find that polls like the LA Times poll show less support for Roe than Harris found, and you may also find other polls that show more support for Roe than Harris found, but it still requires an enormous investment of time and energy and research to find out for sure what the full poll question was. One thing is clear: the Harris poll results are somewhere in the middle, with other polls showing more support and still other polls showing less support. For all of its flaws and slanting, Harris is a fairly reputable company, so my preference would be to just leave the public opinion section as it is. Also, as you pointed out, one of the main advantages of Harris is that we can look at trends going back to 1973. Notice that the table in the public opinion section does not indicate overall support for Roe; it only indicates how support has shifted over time. As far as I know, that kind of trend data is not available from other polls.Ferrylodge 01:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Section on Misimpressions?

There should be a section about misimpressions about ROE. I constantly see articles in the media say that ROE "legalized" abortion, with the implication that if ROE were overturned abortion would become "illegal" again. In reality overturning Roe would allow the controversy to be decided through the democratic process, as most advanced countries have done. How many of the "pro-ROE" respondents in the poll understand this? As for those that don't, how can their opinions in favor of "ROE" have any validity? The real question is not "ROE" but "when should abortion be or not be allowed?" CharlesTheBold 06:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Charles. At present, the article does quote Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas on this point: "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so." Also, footnote 34 of the article links to a discussion of the "OVERTURNING-EQUALS-TOTAL-BAN MYTH."

The section on public opinion discusses the myth that a woman's doctor has decision-making power, and discusses the myth that Roe only legalized abortion during the first trimester. So, I think the article debunks the myths pretty well. You're right that this article could discuss the fact that other advanced democracies have resolved this issue democratically rather than by judicial edict, but that's really an international law issue that is probably better addressed at the article on abortion law, I think. Maybe we could add a brief section at the end of this article on "Common misconceptions", but it might be redundant in view of the other stuff in this article.Ferrylodge 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but that footnote (34) is labelled "Press Release from National Right to Life". Given the polarized nature of the debate, people who favor Roe-vs-Wade because they confuse it with "legalized abortion" are probably not going to bother reading it, or to believe it if they do. That's why we need an objective source like Wikipedia that can state facts. CharlesTheBold 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point about note 34. But suppose we added a new section on myths about Roe. In the new section, we would discuss, for example, the myth that overturning Roe would mean abortion would automatically become illegal. The primary evidence that we would cite to counter that myth would be a quote like this from Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist: "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so." However, that quote is already in the article, so wouldn't it be redundant?

I sympathize with your desire to clear up myths about this decision. I'm just concerned that other editors would object to redundancy, plus a million other objections that always arise when this article is edited.Ferrylodge 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also another large misconception that needs to be considered, that RvW is about a woman's right to control her own body (commonly raised). The text of the actual decision will state that the true right granted in RvW is the right to be free from the burdens of motherhood. It is this distinction that needs to be apparent to show that the State's implementation of this decision violates the 14th amendment as it gives no "right to be free from the burdens of fatherhood" and therefore does not provide equal protection under the law. Excerpt of the important text below:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation."

74.192.34.19 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Primacy

Here's a recent edit that I'm going to revert. The reason given is "NPOV". The deleted stuff is in bold:

“ Another criticism of Roe (though not one made by the dissenters) is that the majority opinion failed to recognize the personhood of fetal human life, either beginning at conception or later. Supporters describe Roe as vital to preservation of women's equality, personal freedom, privacy, and the primacy of individual rights, although the opposition to Roe often references the primacy of the individual when referring to the fetus. ”

This deleted stuff has been in the article for about a year. See here. I don't see why it presents a POV problem. No elaboration was given for the edit. It is objectively true that, while pro-choice people emphasize a woman's individual rights, pro-life people emphasize individual rights of the fetus (and of family members who would protect the fetus). So, I really don't see an NPOV problem here. Am I missing something?Ferrylodge 12:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The issue is not a factual one, but one of undue weight. Even-handedness is the soul of impartiality, and to bookend one side's argument with the other's is unfair. Besides, lead paragraphs are all about conciseness. There's plenty of room in the body to elaborate on the exact arguments of the two camps. Deltabeignet 21:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be undue weight to mention that supporters of Roe cite the primacy of women's rights, without mentioning that opponents cite the primacy of fetal rights? Why should the former be mentioned but not the latter?Ferrylodge 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at the paragraph and realized that there was no reason to say both "personal freedom" and "primacy of individual rights". I cut the text in dispute and the primacy bit, circumventing the problem. Deltabeignet 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit looks okay to me.Ferrylodge 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Harris Interactive Poll

I think the "Public Opinon" poll added on the front page was a little decieptive. Here is the orginial Table:

1973	1976	1979	1981	1985	1989	1991	1992	1993	1996	1998	2005	2006
%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Favor	52	59	60	56	50	59	65	61	56	52	57	52	49
Oppose	42	28	37	41	47	37	33	35	42	41	41	47	47
Not Sure/ Refused	7	13	3	3	3	4	4	4	3	7	2	1	4

I think it's a much better way than the table on the front page. Anyone else agree?

The "Public Opinon" poll table on the front page was designed to prevent it from being deceptive. The problem is that the poll question incorrectly implied that Roe only legalized abortion in the first trimester, when actually it legalized abortion in the second trimester too (i.e. up until viability for any reason a woman chooses). Thus, the poll results may be a good indicator of the public opinion trend, but not a good indicator of the total support or opposition.Ferrylodge 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Leigao84 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Roe and anti-Roe

The following sentence was recently edited to insert the parentheticals: "Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into 'pro-choice' (pro-abortion) and 'pro-life' (anti-abortion) camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides."

In my opinion, this sentence could use clarification, but the parentheticals do not do the job. First of all, someone who is pro-choice may also consider himself or herself to be opposed to abortion, and only in favor of a right to make such a tragic choice. At the same time, it's true that the words "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are not self-explanatory for someone unfamiliar with this whole issue, and so parentheticals could possibly be helpful here. I think a better way to change the sentence would be like this: "Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-Roe (mostly pro-choice) and anti-Roe (mostly pro-life) camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides." I'll go ahead and make this change, which I think makes the article more accurate. Note that this article has an entire section explaining that many liberal scholars are pro-choice but anti-Roe.Ferrylodge 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dickey Amendment, Plan B, et cetera

The article was recently edited to include these new italicized sentences:

Some pro-life supporters argue that life begins upon conception, and thus the unborn should be entitled to legal protection. Based on this argument, these pro-lifers argue against the Plan B "contraception" and any intentional destruction of living human embryos, citing that they contain unique human DNA, and match the biological definition of life (contains cells, require nourishment, homeostasis etc.) Acknowledging America's pluralism, President Clinton signed the first Dickey Amendment in 1995, as a "policy of silence", whereby the federal government would neither ban destructive embryo research, nor fund it. President Bush slightly relaxed that decision in 2001. [6]

I'm sure that this stuff is accurate, but I don't think it belongs at this location, or even in this article. The section is titled "Controversy" which of course means controversy about Roe v. Wade. I think, therefore, that this material should be in another article instead, for example in an article about the pro-life movement, or about the Stem cell controversy, or about Plan B, or the like. So, I'm going to remove it from this article. If there's any objection to the removal, I hope we can talk about it here on the talk page before proceeding further. Thanks.Ferrylodge 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I just ran across your comments here now in the discussion. Thank you. I'll give it some thought and come back on it, perhaps in a different article, like you say.

Shrommer 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa...

Don't you think Descriptions of this decision range from "thoroughly corrupt,"[2] to a "blow for freedom and equality for women."[3] is a little harsh for an opening commentary? 75.69.110.227 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have moved this topic from the top of the page, to the bottom, as required here.

Regarding the first paragraph of the article, it reflects the passions surrounding this decision, by explaining that "Descriptions of this decision range from 'thoroughly corrupt,'[2] to a 'blow for freedom and equality for women.'[3]" I don't see a problem with this description. Just about everyone's view falls somewhere in between, right?Ferrylodge 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Effects and statistics

Shouldn't there be a section here on the effects of Roe v Wade on such things as broken families, number of children, etc.? Or at least the statistics since 1973. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.43.91 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't just list statistics since 1973, because it would imply a causation, when it may just be a correlation or even a coincidence. Any statistics about the effects of Roe v. Wade need to specifically focus on causation. What I am trying to avoid is the sort of stuff that someone once wanted to add to the abortion article. The incident I am recalling was that the user wanted to add that the abortion rate declined under President Clinton, which obviously implies that Clinton had something to do with it, although the source cited said nothing about Clinton. So, what sort of statistics do you have in mind? Can you mention your sources?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary in full: 19:17 PST, 4 Dec 07

Intro
Re: "Roe critics say the ruling is illegitimate because it strays from the text and history of the Constitution, and imposes abortion policy on the states and Congress contrary to American principles of federalism and democracy."
From Federalism : "Advocates of a weaker federal government and stronger state government are those that generally favor confederation, often related to "anti-federalists"." "federalism" deleted.
If one accepts the existence and role of the Supreme Court, then one would consider their rulings at least democratic. Whatever issue anyone might have with the Supreme Court, or any other part of the US government, as to whether or not it is "contrary to the principles of democracy", expression of that does not belong in this section of the Wiki, if on the Wiki at all. Deleted.
Pursuant to another discussion, personhood vs inviolability, I have -added- the original "inviolability".
Women's equality. Abortion is not a process undergone by men. Women's Rights, which includes women's equality in its scope but also the concept of issues pertaining to women only, or centered on women, is perhaps the word the writer was seeking. Replaced, corresponding link added.
Modified as above; moved this paragraph under the appropriate heading Controversy *

Supreme Court decision
Heading: Completely unnecessary. Misleading. Irrelevant, in that it describes a subject of the subject, rather than the subject itself. Removed.

Controversy *
The writer of the opinion "recognized" the rights of the person in this very article, a few paragraphs up. However, it is considerably improved by adding the word "adequately".
"killing an innocent victim.." All three words unnecessarily charged. The entire phrase is unnecessary to convey the meaning of the sentence. Replaced.
Added human life distinction.
majority of Americans believe as a link? link changed to CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.

Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I got a little carried away with the human life distinction. I was scrupulous with the language, so I challenge the assertion that the tone was not neutral. Similarly, I challenge the assertion that it was original research, inasmuch as that refers to PoV. I agree it lacks sources. Embryos appear non-human in the first trimester; polls tally acceptance of abortions at that time. Foetuses appear more human in the second trimester; polls tally rejection at that time. Unfortunately the general public does not contribute much to the discussion other than their responses to polls; I made the point that it could be coincidental with my choice of the word 'reflected'; I was not seeking to say 'confirmed' or 'proven' or any such word indicating that there was a direct correlation. Pretty sure I will find the distinction of human life as opposed to just life though. Of some note is the fact that the word 'embryo' appeared nowhere on this page, before I added it, and the words killing, and victim, did, before I deleted them in the same edit. Anarchangel (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Anarchangel

I hope my revert didn't seem to bold. I believe you are editing in good faith, and I'm glad you recognize you may have been "a little carried away". While your statements may be true that embryos are more like tadpoles and fetuses are more like babies, and thus this explains the acceptance of 1st trimester abortions and the disapproval of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. However, without a specific source to make that claim, it is original research to make the connection. And as you point out, being a poll, the respondents often aren't given a chance to explain their views in more depth. So I think it is best for now, without any further sourcing, to simply state what the poll found, and leave trying to explain those findings to the experts. As for your other edits, thanks for helping improve the article. Just because I disagreed with part of your edit doesn't mean I don't believe you can edit in good faith. I see that you are new to wikipedia as well, so if you have any questions about learning the ropes or anything else, I'd be glad to try and help where I can. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberals legal criticisms

This paragraph is a tissue of PoV, obfuscation, and misrepresentation wrapped over some out of context quotes, some of which are from nobodies, and some of which are apologists crying over spilt milk, and some of which are from non-liberals. None of those named "argue that the ends achieved by Roe do not justify the means" It is an insult to the Wiki.

richard cohen mentioned ends and means. none of the others are quoted as saying that. this should not be the heading, it should be a sentence about richard cohen.

most arent liberals. a couple or three aren't even close

benjamin witte is a right wing blogger. this link shouldnt be here.

saletan isnt liberal at all.

John Hart Ely's hero, Earl Warren, was a conservative who turned out to be more liberal than people thought he would be. who nonetheless said "The only reason that there has been no sabotage or espionage on the part of Japanese-Americans is that they are waiting for the right moment to strike." Testimony before Congress on the Internment of people of Japanese Ancestry (1941)" hardly a hero for a liberal.

Tribe is big on the Constitution, and Roe is perceived as shaky on the constitution. woot.

Cox' statement has one aspect which is relevant to this Wiki: it is pro-PoV. Yes, relevant, in that we are trying to get -rid- of it. And he is -for- it.

Ginsberg wished things had been different after the fact, and wanted things to go -further- than roe. she was against roe like those who think that we could have won are against the vietnam war. same with michael kinsley.

Lazarus 'no one has produced a convincing defense' tells me a lot more about the writer than it does Roe. He is a law clerk. Discounted.

dershowitz: the quote says 'judges' not 'justices'. it is not apparent that this quote is even about roe v wade. discounted.

sunstein is again voicing concern about opposition, not substantiveness. he is also a contributing editor to a self-described 'centrist' publication, hardly a liberal.

kermit roosevelt is a law clerk. discounted.

I got this just from 15 minutes of searching the links -from this article- on Wiki. Doubtless there is more to uncover. PoV has to be fought, or the Wiki becomes the PoV of whoever has the most time on their hands. People adding 'there is a debate about subject x' and then presenting half of the debate in one sentence filled with loaded words, whole paragraphs on one side of the argument, with the spurious claim to middle ground that they come from the other side of the debate -as the writers define it- I am sick of it, and so should you be.

And finally, pursuant to the above: 'LIBERAL' IS POV. hellooo?

I will give those interested a week to clean this up, and if it is not satisfactorily amended, the whole mess will be deleted. If you revert the deletion, I will appeal. Anarchangel (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Anarchangel, you make some interesting criticisms, although the last couple sentences sound a bit more like an ultimatum than an offer to discuss your concerns. Anyway, maybe your concerns can be turned into improvement to the article, so I'll be glad to discuss it.

First off, I see that you object to characterizing Earl Warren as a "liberal." But surely you would agree that Earl Warren had a different political and judicial philosophy than, say, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas has. What words would you use to classify Warren, to distinguish him from people like Rehnquist and Alito?

I'm also kind of puzzled why you've quoted Earl Warren at length, when he was not mentioned in the section you criticize. But maybe discussing Earl Warren will be helpful, so we can change the word "liberal" to some more appropriate adjective. I assume that you would object to the word "progressive" as well?

Regarding Kermit Roosevelt, is he really a law clerk? I thought he was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. But I could be mistaken.

And how about Lawrence Tribe? He is surely no Steve Calabresi, right? Do you think Tribe would object to being called a "liberal" or a "progressive"? What word would you use to describe Tribe's politics and legal philosophy?

Anyway, I'm serious about wanting to discuss this with you. I'm sure there's room for improvement in this section of the article. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Although you haven't responded yet, Anarchangel, I started digging for info. I would support inserting the following info into the footnotes. Saletan: "I am the only liberal Republican I know."[7] Wittes: “I generally favor permissive abortion laws.”[8] Also, Lazarus isn't a clerk anymore, is he? I thought he's been writing for Findlaw and other publications for many years.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And here are a few more quotes that might usefully be put in the footnotes. What do you think? Benjamin Wittes: "In their quieter moments many liberal scholars recognize that the decision is a mess."[9] Stuart Taylor: "Roe v. Wade was sort of conjured up out of very general phrases and was recorded, even by most liberal scholars like Archibald Cox at the time, John Harvey Link - just to name two Harvard scholars - as kind of made-up constitutional law.”[10] Jack Balkin: “Liberal and feminist legal scholars have spent decades showing that the result was correct even if Justice Blackmun’s opinion seems to have been taken from the Court’s Cubist period.”[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some edits along the lines described above. Do you think that solves some of the problems you mentioned, Anarchangel?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cubist period! Hilarious. But I don't see how anything has changed. Just look at the California marijuana commerce clause case and the Connecticut eminent domain case. Conservative or liberal, the Supreme Court sure does love to increase (1) its own power, and — what certainly aids the first — (2) the power of the federal government. —Jemmy_tc 17:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, not that it's incredibly relevant, but I have to disagree with you about the Connecticut eminent domain case (Kelo). The Court held that the decision is up to Connecticut, and the Constitution doesn't say one way or the other. That's the opposite of Roe v. Wade. The primary purpose of the Takings Clause is to require just compensation, and no one argued in the Connecticut case that the compensation was insufficient.

In the California marijuana case (Raich), the Court deferred to Congress, rather than overturning what Congress had done. So, again, that's the opposite of Roe. But I agree that it was a stretch for the Court to say in Raich that growing pot in your back yard for your personal use can be banned by Congress under the commerce clause.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[I'm sorry to go off topic even more, but I am still going to do it!] As a state/federal matter you're right, but that's not what I meant. In the Raich case the court actually ruled that regulation of non-commercial intrastate activity which has a potential effect on supply and demand falls under the commerce clause; and moreover that the power of enforcement is not limited to cases where such effect exists. Patently absurd. Under this definition, almost all human activity is interstate commerce, even non-commercial activity that takes place outside the USA. (Only jurisdiction prevents this from being under the domain of the federal government.) The definition of "public use" applied in Kelo is very similar; all private uses are now public uses; the distinction is eliminated. This applies to federal and state governments, substantially increasing the power of both. The similarity to Roe vs. Wade is not in the reasoning behind the ruling or in any legal principle, but rather the complete lack of reasoning, the total incoherence of the opinion, the power-grab thinly veiled in sophistry. It's quite obvious that the disastrous Raich ruling was motivated by the court's opinion that marijuana should be illegal, just as Roe was motivated by their opinion that abortion should not be, and Kelo by the general idea that governments must be free to reappropriate private property. Underlying them all is a belief that the supreme court should be deciding such matters. The real precedent set by Roe vs. Wade is the popular acceptance of judicial legislation. (Not to suggest it was the first instance.) —Jemmy_tc 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jemmy, fell free to email me if you'd like to discuss Raich and Kelo some more. If you'd like, you can go to my home page, and click on "email this user" over on the left-hand-side.

There are scholars who dislike what the State of Connecticut did in Kelo, but who still believe it was constitutional. For example, Prof. Jonathan Adler wrote: "[W]hile I would like to read ‘public use’ as a strict limitation on government use of eminent domain for a small set of purposes, there is little warrant for this interpretation in either the ratification history or the court's jurisprudence of the past 100 years or so." Prior to 1789, several state constitutions expressly limited the government's power to take private property, by demanding that a taking be based upon "public necessity" or "the public exigencies." No such langauge is in the U.S. Fifth Amendment. James Madison wrote about the idea of taking slaves away from their masters: "Whatever may be the intrinsic character of that property [slavery], it is one known to the constitution and, as such, could not be constitutionally taken away without compensation." Regarding Raich, like I said, I think it was probably decided wrongly, but at least Congress was allowed to do what it wanted. And Scalia was not completely out of his mind to suggest that home-grown pot would "undercut" the interstate ban, because someone smoking pot would not be as easily identifiable as a lawbreaker.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What strikes me the most about this liberal controversy section is the amount of weight that is given to these people's view. What should the due weight be in this situation? Do the majority of "liberal"s agree or disagree with Roe? This makes it seem like the vast majority clearly disagree with the Roe decision, even if they like abortion. From my own personal understanding, it is the other way around (that the vast majority of liberals think Roe is great). Therefore, we are giving way to much credence to minority views, while not mentioning the majority view anywhere. Are these the sort of issues you have as well Jeremy? -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, this section is about legal criticism. The next section on public opinion covers non-legal criticism, and indicates that the non-legal criticism is a minority view. So I think your question ("Do the majority of liberals agree or disagree with Roe?") is not well taken. A better question would be, "Do the majority of liberal legal scholars agree or disagree that Justice Blackmun's opinion was correct?" And I don't know the answer to that question. Notice that I've focussed on Blackmun's opinion here. Some of the people mentioned in this Wikipedia article as opposing Blackmun's opinion nevertheless believe that Roe could be justified on other grounds, or should be preserved just because it's already been around so long (stare decisis). The very first paragraph of this article section makes clear that many liberals and feminists support Roe but for different reasons than Blackmun described. So, I don't see an undue weight problem here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The point of me listing PoV last was that not only is Liberal a value judgement, but many of these people aren't even considered liberal by the most objective assessment possible. Whether the people listed are liberal is of less concern, in the light of this. "Liberal" is PoV. please respond. Links are not the place to insert material you don't wish to include in the article. Please respond. I looked at the procedure for arbitration, and it seems as though it would be unwise of me to delete, although I do believe it will be deleted in the end. The paragraph is essentially a list of quotes. That strikes me as wrong, in addition to the the use of Liberal.

1. The paragraph needs to be deleted. I can't see it being a part of this article. The whole article is a mess. Presidential opinions, I was looking at. What a farce. However, procedure must be followed. I will not delete until authorized. Pursuant to that, I will converse until resolution or an impasse is reached, and participate in arbitration until a decision is made.
2. Warren was a straight arrow. Liberal, conservative, didnt concern him. Pretty much makes him not a liberal, though, doesnt it? And, I wouldnt classify him. PoV, rememember?
3. Pht. "John Hart Ely's hero, Earl Warren,..." John Hart is listed. Liberal is PoV. Progressive is PoV.
4. Well, that's pretty much the point. The quote doesnt say who he is, he isnt listed in Wiki, there are about 5 kermit roosevelts but not him, and elsewhere it similarly confused. If one was going to quote him, an explanation would be helpful. Cant find the page listing him as clerk atm.
5. My mention of Tribe was primarily in concession. Calabresi isnt listed in the article. Liberal is PoV. Maybe the problem was I only said it once? I thought capital letters and Hellooo afterwards might be enough.
6. You didn't respond to these.
Cohen: this one is important. the header defines the paragraph. This first sentence is Cohen's opinion, it should be attributed to him. It is the opinion of no one else in the paragraph. Please respond.
Witte is no liberal. Liberal is PoV, vague, it obscures or is an excuse for lack of facts. He says he supports liberal abortion laws. what does it mean? This is a problem with your quotes in general, btw. They arent factual, they are rhetoric. They don't make logical arguments, they weave a nice poetic waft of cool breeze.
Saletan Liberal Republican see below
Ginsburg belongs, in a section titled Political Strategies of Roe Supporters. As noted before, it isn't really a critism so much as it is a regret, after the fact.
kinsley see ginsburg.
Dershowitz. I wondered if the quote even concerns Roe, please respond.
sunstein is a centrist, respond. see ginsburg

If you did a poll asking people if the phrase Liberal Republican is an oxymoron, true or false, what kind of results do you think you would get. It's a joke to his fellow Republicans, a self-effacing joke at that, to disperse potential criticism. The fact that terms like Liberal and Conservative don't fit into nice neat boxes just further shows their unsuitability as descriptive nouns in a Wiki article.
"mess": largely meaningless.
similarly meaningless, name dropping/hearsay
First half of sentence is coherent. He would then seem to be saying that the decision was deficient in some way. Which confuses me; the Cubists were more than adequate at what they did, which was painting. Painting really doesn't have a lot to do with Roe v Wade. This is an appeal to lowbrow prejudices; it is unworthy of any educated discourse, let alone the Wiki.

The changes you have made since: The new category of feminism is a backwards step, as is a second quote turned into a paragraph-coloring header which can be read as pertaining to the whole paragraph. It is a quote with a footnote instead of an attribution.

Well, that about covers it. Don't forget to respond to, Liberal is PoV. Anarchangel (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Anarchangel, maybe it will be best to take your main point first. You say that the term "liberal" is POV. However, there's a Wikipedia article on the subject, plus about 64,000 other Wikipedia articles that use the term. If a person self-identifies as a "liberal" and others characterize him as a "liberal" then where's the POV problem?

Regarding Kermit Roosevelt, this article wikilinks to the article about him, so he is indeed listed on wiki. Regarding Dershowitz, yes he was explicitly discussing Roe, as you can see from the external link provided. Regarding Sunstein, the footnote includes a quote describing him as a "liberal constitutional scholar." Ditto for Ely.

Anyway, if your main concern is that the term "liberal" is POV, is the term "conservative" also POV?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we call a spade a spade here? Roe vs. Wade obviously has no basis whatsoever in constitutional law. Any legal scholar who says otherwise disqualifies himself by that opinion alone, just as any astronomer would disqualify himself by an appeal to epicycles. It's clear what the reason for the opinion is. A Canadian liberal (for example) could readily acknowledge this without conflict. The court's complete lack of intellectual honesty shouldn't have to extend to everyone who supports legal abortion. In the last analysis it does no good for American liberals to be represented as disingenuous; the honest ones deserve at least recognition of their existence.

Anyway, here's a compromise which probably makes more sense. "Liberal" is not what is meant here anyway; what the page should represent is pro-abortion opponents of the decision. —Jemmy_tc 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jemmy, the term "pro-abortion" is a bit loaded, so I would have to disagree with you. There are many people who support permissive abortion laws who nevertheless would urge a woman not to get an abortion. Rudy Giuliani, for example. Even if we used the word "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion", it would still open up a can of worms, because the footnotes now cite people who are "liberal." Someone (e.g. me) would have to go chasing down a whole new set of quotes, and for what? Isn't the word "liberal" a perfectly legitimate word?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally, I avoid words like "liberal" and "conservative," which are today usually devoid of meaning. Anyone who interprets "pro-abortion" the way you suggest they might really shouldn't be allowed to read (some people just can't be trusted around words), although I certainly don't care how the thing is phrased--it means the same thing in the end. The reason pro-abortion critics (sorry: critics in favor of legal abortion) are notable is that they are not politically motivated in their opinion; their criticism therefore has a greater weight; it occurs in spite of a conflict of interest, rather than because of one.

In the case of "liberals" this is not (strictly speaking) the case. There is nothing about "liberal" that means pro-abortion (sorry: opposed to abortion prohibition). People think so because they take "liberal" to mean alignment with a certain orthodoxy: very ironic!^* An anti-abortion (sorry, pro-life) liberal's opinion on Roe vs. Wade, though, would not really merit attention in the same way that a pro-abortion (sorry, pro-choice) opinion would, even from a conservative. Thus, "liberal" is not really what is meant.

As far as the work involved, I propose Anarchangel do it.  ;) —Jemmy_tc 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

^* If you did a poll asking people what the word "liberal" means, what kind of results do you think you would get?

Jemmy, what if we changed the heading title to "Pro-choice and liberal legal criticisms"? Then I could simply put additional info into the footnotes establishing that the people mentioned have taken a pro-choice position. Would that be okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Context for poll results

This article was kept as a featured article on February 5 of this year. At that time, the article provided context for the poll results. The article stated:

However, pro-life groups assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion.[34] The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions, while later abortions are more controversial; 72% of women are opposed according to a Los Angeles Times poll.[11] Also, Roe decided that a woman can get an abortion for any reason, without regard to what her doctor advises.[1]

All of this material was subsequently deleted without talk page discussion, on October 5 2.

This week, I reinserted a very abbreviated version of the removed material: "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision." Today, Andrew c reverted that abbreviated version (again without talk page discussion).

I believe that some context needs to be provided for the poll question and the poll results. In 1981, the vice president and executive editor of the Associated Press issued a directive stating that "it's wrong to say only that the court approved abortion in the first three months. It did that, but more."[12] This article should acknowledge that the Harris poll question may be misleading.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not make side jabs at me. Discuss content not people. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Content very similar to the FAR content I quoted was deleted on October 2, rather than October 5 (including the identical statement that "The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions"). Please don't accuse me of taking "jabs" at you when all I did was note that your deletion was not accompanied by talk page discussion here. The only talk page discussion occurred at your talk page, with the same person who deleted the material on October 2. Thanks for your willingness to talk about it here and now.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Next, the content you quoted was not removed in the diff you provided. I'm also confused of the date, because there wasn't a single edit to the article on October 5th. However, that doesn't matter, because I am not here to defend edits from over 2 months ago. I'll discuss the edit that I made. You inserted unsourced commentary: though the poll question quoted above asked about only "part" of the decision. (keep in mind that unsourced content can be removed at any time, and the burden of discussion lays with the one who wants to include the content). We quote the entire question. Why do we need to explain what the question says when we have the entire question quoted? On top of that, it appears you are trying to contradict the findings of the Harris poll. If they said "56 percent now favors the U.S. Supreme Court decision", and you personally believe that is inaccurate based on the nature of the question they asked, we still cannot publish your original thoughts here on wikipedia. We'd need another citation criticizing this exact poll to make the implication that they are wrong. And if the Harris organization is putting out misleading interpretations of their data, are they even a reliable source to cite in the first place? I'd support removing the Harris data completely if there is a good case that they aren't a WP:RS before I'd support inserting unsourced criticism that implies there own published findings are faulty. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your assertion that I have tried to insert "unsourced commentary" into this article, I'm having some difficulty understanding why you think that the following statement is not sourced: "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision." This is a purely factual statement that is fully supported by the quoted poll question. Let's try to be friendly with each other, okay Andrew c?

The Harris poll results were inserted into this article during the featured article review. Editors discussed then that the Harris poll results may not accurately measure the amount of support for Roe v. Wade, but we agreed that the Harris poll results are a valuable indicator of the trend over a great many years. That is why the table in the article does not include an absolute amount of support or opposition, but instead only indicates the increase or decrease over the years. Do you agree or disagree that the Harris poll results can be useful in this article, if they are accompanied by adequate explanation?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of the disputed sentence in question with the quote Harris' findings is what I consider original synthesis. It clearly makes an implication that the claim the Harris group makes is incorrect based on the nature of one question they asked. For those following along, this is the full context of the disputed sentence: The Harris organization concluded from this poll that "56 percent now favors the U.S. Supreme Court decision", though the poll question quoted above asked about only "part" of the decision. It clearly implies that the conclusion they draw is based on a partial or misleading question. It implies "how can the Harris group say that the country favors the whole Supreme Court decision when they only asked about "part" of the Supreme Court decision?" Clearly, this is a valid question for FL to raise on his own. But to publish that here on wikipedia would be original research. We can clearly quote what the Harris organization found. And if we have sources that state that Harris' findings are flawed, then we can clearly add that as well. But making the leap without a source is what I find problematic. I hope my concern is clear now. Thanks. (Here is an idea, instead of quoting the findings of the Harris organization verbatim, perhaps we could take a more summary approach. How about a sentence like "Through examining the data it collected, the Harris organization concluded that a majority of those polled support the Supreme Court decision".?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Andrew c, you suggest not quoting the findings of the Harris organization. Are you suggesting that we delete the table of data in the public opinion section? I would disagree with that, unless we present other poll results instead.

Original synthesis and original research are of course not okay at Wikipedia. I'm not convinced that the statement in question (i.e. "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision") is either one, any more than the FAR-approved statement deleted on October 5 (i.e. "The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions") was original synthesis or original research. But maybe it's better to find alternative language that we both consider to be clearly okay. I disagree with your proposed alternative (i.e. "Through examining the data it collected, the Harris organization concluded that a majority of those polled support the Supreme Court decision") because it does not give the reader any idea whatsoever that the Harris poll results may be misleading or problematic due to the fact that they only asked about the first three months. We have an obligation to not mislead Wikipedia readers, and that's the only obligation that I was trying to fulfill.

Here's how this matter was resolved in the FAR....

However, pro-life groups assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion.[34] The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions, while later abortions are more controversial; 72% of women are opposed according to a Los Angeles Times poll.[11] Also, Roe decided that a woman can get an abortion for any reason, without regard to what her doctor advises.[1]

[1] Roe v. Wade.
[11] Rubin, Allisa. "Americans Narrowing Support for Abortion," Los Angeles Times (2000-06-18). Retrieved 2007-02-02. (Reporting that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men.)

[34] Press Release from National Right to Life Committee titled “Associated Press and Other Media Distort Roe v. Wade and Public Opinion on Abortion Policy” (2004-11-29). Retrieved 2007-01-12.

I don't think you could make any case that this is original research or original synthesis, right? This FAR-approved solution presents the Wikipedia reader with a full understanding about the Harris poll results. Would reinstating this FAR solution be acceptable to you, Andrew c?

Alternatively, here's how this matter was resolved leading up to the reversion on October 2:

Critics assert that the media often misreport polls on Roe v. Wade.[36] The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions, whereas Roe decided that a woman can get a pre-viability abortion for any reason, without regard to any concern her doctor may have about protecting the fetus, well beyond the first trimester.[1]

[1] Roe v. Wade

[36] Press Release from National Right to Life Committee titled “Associated Press and Other Media Distort Roe v. Wade and Public Opinion on Abortion Policy” (2004-11-29). Retrieved 2007-01-12.

I don't think you could make any case that this is original research or original synthesis, right? This pre-October-2 solution presents the Wikipedia reader with a full understanding about the Harris poll results. Would reinstating this pre-October-2 solution be acceptable to you, Andrew c?

A third approach would be to quote the vice president and executive editor of the Associated Press who issued a directive in 1981 stating that "it's wrong to say only that the court approved abortion in the first three months. It did that, but more."[13] I don't think you could make any case that this is original research or original synthesis, right? Presenting this quote would give the Wikipedia reader a full understanding about the Harris poll results. Would this third solution be acceptable to you, Andrew c?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, let's cut to the chase. Do you have a source that state's the Harris poll question is misleading? Do you have a source that says the conclusion (which we currently quote) is inaccruate? Your proposals piece together different ideas and apply them to the Harris poll, which would be a case of wikipedia publishing the first ever criticism of the Harris poll. I hope you understand why this is unacceptable. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that the sources that I've described, regarding polls and regarding reports about Roe v. Wade, are not notable and should not be included in this article? Do you have a reason for keeping material out of this article that was approved in the featured article review and that provides context for opinion polls on this subject? Must everything in the public opinion section of this article specifically reference Harris?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully within a few days I'll have time to draft some additional language that may be deemed satisfactory, for the public opinion section. Right now, the public opinion section is lacking context. It would help to have answers to the questions posed earlier today, but in any case I'll suggest how we can restore the context that was included during the FAR in February, and that existed in the article thru October. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I'll put the following quote in the article later today, since it seems to be what Andrew c was asking for. The Harris poll question "is misleading because, although accurate as far as it goes, it tends to give those uninformed about the decision the impression that the Court did not legalize abortion after three months....It certainly does not measure opinions about the Court’s overall decision."

Adamek, Raymond. "Abortion Polls", The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 411-413.

I still think the Harris poll results should be included in this article, because they indicate how support for Roe has risen and fallen over the years. However, it's essential that we put it in context, and the Adamek quote is one way to do that.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I really appreciate you doing this research. let's hold off throwing that quote into the article and discuss things a bit longer. Here is what I have come up with as a proposed sentence to insert after the Harris conclusion quote:

• In a 1978 journal letter, sociologist and pro-life activist Raymond J. Adamek questioned whether the Harris poll question was a valid measure of public opinion about Roe's overall decision because the question focuses only on the first three months of pregnancy.

My initial concern is that this is an almost 30 year old letter to a journal. Over at Talk:Mifepristone, editors felt a single letter to an editor from a 16 year old journal was giving undue weight to that view. So I can't help make the comparison to a letter that is even older. That said, since the question has been consistently the same over the course of the survey, the criticisms from yonder still seem valid to me. Therefore, I personally wouldn't mind inserting something along the lines of the sentence I proposed. I generally prefer summarizing instead of quoting (I feel we can be more concise, and it is more encyclopedic, and leads to better prose). If you don't mind, I would like to ask for MastCell and/or Bondegezou's opinion on the WP:WEIGHT issue (but I won't without your consent).-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, thanks for drafting some language. I agree it might be useful to add some more current stuff about the Harris poll language. For example, the poll question was called a “mind-numbing and incorrect question” in June of this year. See Franz, Wanda. "The Continuing Confusion About Roe v. Wade", NRL News (June 2007).

I see that you have inserted info about the political leanings of the author of the 1978 letter, which is fine by me, as long as we're consistent throughout the abortion-related articles. It might be better, however, to include such info in footnotes instead of the main text, so that it does not become too obtrusive, especially in an instance where there's no evidence from the cited publication itself as to the political leanings of the author (e.g. I had no idea what the political leanings of Adamek were until I read your draft language).

As for calling on Mastcell and others, how about if you and I see how far we get, first? Once we take care of the present question, then maybe we can consider whether or not to include second-trimester poll results (like those that were included during the FAR).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be worthwhile to note this discussion which occurred last month on Talk:Abortion in the United States. I would say that the determination reached about the Harris poll on that article would probably also apply to this one. -Severa (!!!) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Severa. You are referring to a brief discussion at the talk page of another article, between an anonymous IP and one named user. The conclusion reached there seems to have been that the Harris poll results should be presented without context, and without any indication that they are controversial due to the phrasing of the poll question. An opposite conclusion was reached during the Featured Article Review for the present article, after lengthier discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I've drafted up a revised public opinion section, in order to include criticism of the Harris poll question, and to provide context for the Harris poll results....

An October 2007 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade, asked the following question:

“ In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?[1] ”

The Harris organization concluded from this poll that "56 percent now favors the U.S. Supreme Court decision". However, critics assert that the poll is not a valid measure of public opinion about Roe's overall decision, primarily because the question focuses on the first trimester.[2][3] The legality of second trimester abortions is more controversial, with 72% of women opposed, according to a 2000 Los Angeles Times poll.[4]

Regardless of whether or not the Harris poll question accurately measures overall support for Roe, the poll does indicate that support for Roe has waxed and waned over the years:[5]

TABLE

The situation in 2007 was not appreciably different from in 1998.

[1]Harris Interactive, (2007-11-09). "Support for Roe v. Wade Increases Significantly, Reaches Highest Level in Nine Years." Retrieved 2007-12-14.

[2]Franz, Wanda. "The Continuing Confusion About Roe v. Wade", NRL News (June 2007): “By repeating the phrase 'up to three months of pregnancy' three times, the respondent is given the powerful suggestion that Roe legalized abortion only in the first three months. And this is then topped off with the phrase 'the woman and her doctor'—suggesting further that abortions are primarily done because of dangers to the mother’s physical health." Franz is President of the National Right to Life Committee.

[3]Adamek, Raymond. "Abortion Polls", Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 411-413: "Harris’s emphasis on the phrase ‘up to three months of pregnancy’ is both curious and misleading....The question...certainly does not measure opinions about the Court’s overall decision." Dr. Adamek is pro-life. Dr Raymond J Adamek, PhD Pro-Life Science and Technology Symposium.

[4]Rubin, Allisa. "Americans Narrowing Support for Abortion," Los Angeles Times (2000-06-18). (Reporting that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men.)

[5] Harris Interactive. 'U.S. Attitudes Toward Roe v. Wade". The Wall Street Journal Online, (2006-05-04).

Any thoughts?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not particularly care for this proposal. It's a bit much, especially all at once, and the bias is evident. It basically discredits the conclusions of the Harris poll, and then presents your personal opinion on what the poll is useful for ("indicat[ing] that support for Roe has waxed and waned over the years"). On top of that, it basically quote mines (in that the full conclusions and context of the poll are omitted) a very high statistic from a poll that is 7 years older than the Harris poll. Your changes are rather drastic. It didn't seem like you had many problems with my proposal. Perhaps we could tweak that, get that in the article, and then tackle the 2nd trimester stuff?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I really object to your statement that I have suggested "biased" language. The fact is that the Harris poll asked only about the first three months, whereas Justice Blackmun wrote in Roe that abortion was legalized for any reason up through "28 weeks" (i.e. 7 months). All I am trying to do here is to put the Harris poll in context by mentioning that it only covers the first trimester. That is not "bias". It is honesty. If you would like to continue the assertions of bias, would you please do so at my talk page? Thanks.

Regarding your desire to address the second trimester at another time, I have no objection, as long as you acknowledge that we should have something in this section about the second trimester. Perhaps we should include the following table based on poll results from CNN/USA Today/Gallup:

	2003 Poll		2000 Poll		1996 Poll
	“Legal”	“Illegal”	“Legal”	“Illegal”	“Legal”	“Illegal”
First trimester	66%	29%	66%	31%	64%	30%
Second trimester	25%	68%	24%	69%	26%	65%
Third trimester	10%	84%	8%	86%	13%	82%

Regarding your assertion that I have "mined" a quote, you are entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but I disagree. I placed details about the LA Times poll in the footnote, and the exact same thing was done at the conclusion of the FAR in February. The 72% figure is more notable than the other figures in the poll. Don't you think so?

And Andrew c, how can anyone look at the table that is now in the article, and not conclude that opinion has changed over the years? If you think that is merely my "personal opinion", exemplifying some sort of bias on my part, then I'm disappointed in you. If you would like to draft up some revised language that you think is free of bias and personal opinion, then please go right ahead, but I urge you to please try to assume some good faith on my part. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Editorializing"

This comment has been moved here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Public opinion poll results table

Is there a particular reason why the table in the public opinion section only shows the results of the poll in relation to public opinion in '73? I'm not opposed to the information being included on the table, but it seems to me it would be beneficial to include the actual numbers rather than just the difference. This is particularly true because the section and table don't actually mention what the percentage was in 1973. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bobblehead, this issue was discussed during the Featured Article Review, and more recently here. Check it out, and see if that doesn't resolve your concern.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the archive discussion and after checking out the discussion on the FAR all I'm seeing is your opinion on the wording of the poll and not a valid explanation as to why there is only the +/- percentage in relation to the 1973 opinion. If your concerned about the wording of the question, then clarify what is being measured in the title of the table, ie "Public opinion on the part of Roe v. Wade making first trimester abortions legal". As it stands now, the table is not overly informative and is more distracting than anything as it is basically meaningless without some context provided. The context of the numbers either needs to be properly addressed, or the table removed and the entire section rewritten to do a better job of addressing how public opinion has changed over the years. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As the article currently explains, there is a dispute about whether or not the Harris poll question accurately measures overall support for Roe. However, no one disputes that the Harris poll indicates that public opinion on this question has fallen and risen over the years. I am not aware of any other poll that has been taken long enough, and consistently enough over the years, to show these cyclic shifts in support.

Having said that, I agree with you that this section of the article could be improved. For example, this section currently only deals with poll results for first trimester abortion, and does not include any poll results for second trimester abortion. I would have no objection to also including a table that includes both first and second trimester abortion, such as the following table based on poll results from CNN/USA Today/Gallup:

	2003 Poll		2000 Poll		1996 Poll
	“Legal”	“Illegal”	“Legal”	“Illegal”	“Legal”	“Illegal”
First trimester	66%	29%	66%	31%	64%	30%
Second trimester	25%	68%	24%	69%	26%	65%
Third trimester	10%	84%	8%	86%	13%	82%

Any thoughts?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Roe v. Wade, not abortion. So the Gallup poll would not be appropriate for this article. But with the Harris poll, there is nothing wrong with using the actual percentages as long as it is clear that the table represents support for the part of the ruling that legalized first term abortions. I'm just not seeing how showing the +/- in comparison to 1973 resolves your concerns about the question only covering the first trimester. Even if one accepts that the Harris poll is flawed because it only asks about the first trimester, the +/- in comparison to 1973 does not reflect support for Roe v. Wade as a whole, but rather support for the portion that legalized abortion in the first trimester. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Gallup poll is not about whether "you've ever had an abortion" or about whether "abortion is right or wrong." It's about whether or not it should be "legal." Saying it should be illegal in the first trimester is the same as saying that Roe v. Wade is wrong, isn't it? More generally, the notion that we would present poll results only for the first trimester and not for the second trimester just seems very lopsided, no?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet again.. This article is not about abortion so a poll that is based solely on that topic is not appropriate for an article on Roe v. Wade. If you want to include polls covering the rest of the Roe v. Wade decision, then you need to find a poll that actually mentions Roe v. Wade. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for polls covering the rest of Roe v. Wade that actually mention Roe v. Wade in the poll question, but in the mean time I think it's best to leave the table as it's been since the FAR, so that it only indicates the trend. Not even the pro-life people would dispute the veracity of the table as it exists now, and the table now provides valuable info about the shifts in public opinion over the years. That was the reason we included it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Check out this link and this one. It seems to be a fairly comprehensive poll about Roe.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is what you call a push poll. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Hmmm, push poll is not the correct explanation I was going for, I meant more that the poll is a pretty good example of how to conducted a biased poll. When polling is conducted, how questions are asked and in what order you ask them are extremely important as minor changes in wording and order can have major effects on the poll results you get.[14] The poll you found guides the person taking the poll to opposing Roe v. Wade by highlighting only the "negative" reasons for having an abortion in the questions proceeding the re-asking of if they support the decision or not and by also asking a greater quantity questions of the "negative" reasons than the "positive" reasons. By the time the person makes it through question 3 they don't really remember the questions asked in number 2 and due to the wording in question 4 the only reasons to have an abortion they are going to think of the "discretionary" reasons for getting an abortion. If they had not wanted to guide people towards not supporting Roe v. Wade in question 4 they would have had an equal number of "positive" and "negative" reasons to have an abortion and they would have randomized all those reasons instead of only randomizing within the "positive" or "negative" groupings. The reason why the Harris Interactive has been used to determine the "pulse" of Americans in regards to Roe v. Wade (or at least the portion that legalized abortions in the first three months) is because the wording is as unbiased as possible, is the only abortion related question that is asked, and has been the same for three decades. Hopefully that wasn't too confusing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Harris wording is not unbiased: the question includes the language "should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide," as if doctors have any substantial decision-making role (the pro-life people address this point here, saying that the phrase "the woman and her doctor" suggests "that abortions are primarily done because of dangers to the mother’s physical health"). Also, the fact that Harris didn't bother to ask any question about the second trimester is telling; Harris advertises their first-trimester question as a poll regarding the overall decision. I don't see that the Ayres McHenry poll is any more biased than the Harris question. Anyway, I'm not pushing for including the Ayres McHenry results in this article, but I do find them illuminating.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to the presentation of the data: it sucks. If you follow the reference link to the Wall Street Journal and look at the graph for about 2 seconds, you will have a pretty good understanding of how the poll results have changed over the years. Since we took their data, can we take that graph too? Or should I put one together in excel? Nialsh (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can just take their graph. Also, having a graph in addition to the table would probably be overkill. The table may suck, but it provides the info. People can follow the reference link to the WSJ if they want more, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Choice/Anti-Choice and NPOV

There are (at the moment) 5 occurrences of the phrase "anti-choice" in this article. Personal stance aside, the generally-used terms for the sides of this issue are "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Defining the controversy over this issue as "Pro" and "Anti" inherently introduces a bias, which violates NPOV. Hence, I am replacing the appropriate "anti-choice" statements as "pro-life". Ogredrew (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do that earlier, but I accidentally missed some of them. Thanks for noticing and fixing. I agree that "pro-life" is much more better than "anti-choice", because the latter is a disparaging term used by opponents, while the later is a term of self identity (see WP:NCI). I'd be glad to discuss matters further, but I think a term of derision used by opponents can never really be used neutrally. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and opinions

I deleted "as we feel it [freedom of choice about abortion] is [found in the 14th amendment]" from the article, as I felt it violated WP:NPOV.Bettering the Wiki 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see it came back. I don't want a lamest edit war.Bettering the Wiki 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please sign with four of these things: "~" at the end of your next comment. Otherwise, your user name doesn't show up at the end of your comment.

Are you aware that you removed words from a direct quote in the article?[15] We can't do that, at least not without replacing the words with one of these things: "..."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FL that the removed text was improperly removed because it was from a quotation (thus altering what our cited source wrote). Ellipses are usually used to remove words from quoted text, but I'm not sure why the words need to be removed in the first place. Removing words from quotations often causes suspicion in readers and should only be used cautiously and where appropriate. Can you please explain why you feel the quotation is improved by removing text from it? Perhaps this was simply a simple mistake and you did not realize that the text you were editing was a quotation.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Liberal criticism

I don't think that the recent overhaul of this section is altogether a good idea. It now says that, "One reaction has been to argue that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way" and then several people are listed. However, the cites don't indicate that Cox or Lazarus think Blackmun reached the correct result, i.e. that the Constitution supports the Roe decision.

Additionally, this section has been in narrative form for quite awhile, and I'm not sure that converting it into a list with bullets is really helpful or consistent with a featured article format. It might be better for Simon to paste the old version here, and do strikethroughs to indicate changes.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the edit was an improvement within the parameters it set for itself. One criterion that I set was that I didn't want to remove anything substantive, even though I thought some of it ought to go. I toyed with having another paragraph that would talk about scholars who remained formally agnostic on whether the result was correct and/or good while criticizing the reasoning. The bulleted list seemed to follow from the editorial decision to move a lot of the quotes from footnotes into the main text; doing that (which I will also defend as being better than editor-penned summaries) created a very long contiguous paragraph. I felt that bullet-pointing it made it easier for readers to digest. In sum, I would advocate reverting back to my edit and then fixing any problems with that, rather than wiping it out entirely. It's certainly improvable, but IMHO, it's an improvement on the earlier version in terms of style. Simon Dodd (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The main objection I raised has nothing to do with style, but rather addresses factual correctness. The cites don't indicate that Cox or Lazarus think Blackmun reached the correct result, i.e. that the Constitution supports the Roe decision. You may not have removed anything substantive, but you certainly added substantive material, by classifying all of these opinions, and I'd say that the classification has not been done carefully.

Regarding whether to move quotes from the footnotes into the main text, that's largely a matter of style, though I would argue that a featured Wikipedia article should be able to describe material, rather than just repeating it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at another version which addresses the concern about the Cox and Lazarus quotes. I disagree with you that Cox and Lazarus are agnostic about whether Roe is correct, FWIW, but that's really beside the point (the article is, after all, about Roe not Ed Lazarus' opinions). I still say the bullet-pointing would be an improvement, but I've dropped that, too, in the spirit of 'go along to get along.' Simon Dodd (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)