Talk:Abortion in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Stats moved from main abortion article

I have moved this out of the main abortion article as it is too detailed there. I haven't checked if this content is redundant here, so I am coming to talk to see if any regulars here would like to give a shot in integrating this text:

In the United States, abortion has predominantly been provided in high volume abortion clinics since its legalization in the 70’s. Approximately 93% of abortions in the United States are performed in clinic settings (defined as 400+/year). 80% are performed in large clinics (1000+/year). Hospitals provide 5% of abortion services; physicians provide 2% of abortion services. From 1996 to 2000, all types of providers decreased in their percentage of abortions performed except the highest volume clinics (5000+/year). Thus, abortions are increasingly concentrated among a smaller number of very large providers. . Since 2000 there have been significant efforts to mainstream early abortion services into family practice settings. Medical abortion and Manual Vacuum Aspiration (both considered nonsurgical abortions) are now being offered in general family practice offices.

-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Edit

Under "Additional Statistics", the following appeared:

An April 2006 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade, asked, "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?", to which 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition. The Harris organization has concluded from this poll that "49 percent now support Roe vs. Wade." In fact, the poll question only dealt with first trimester abortions, and it is known that the legality of later abortions is more controversial (see above). Pro-life groups assert that the media has often misreported polls on the issue of abortion.

The first sentence following the actual statistics is debatable, but the remainder is clearly not npov and represents a flagrant abuse of facts (the question was phrased to explicitly limit its scope to the aspect of Roe dealing with first trimester abortions; the commentary goes on to say that it's narrower than this because it only pertains to first trimester abortions) and insertion of opinion under the tired "some people say..." dodge. I've cut the portion following the actual statistic since it is at best misinformed (by implying that Roe is the root of all abortion) and has more likely willfully "misreported polls on the issue of abortion". Also, did a grammar edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.211.139 (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The sentences you removed were uncited and rather POV. · jersyko talk 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Late Term Reasons Study Misread by Contributor

<quote>In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:</quote>

<quote>In all, 1900 women responded with useful information, of whom 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. Because such women had been oversampled, their reasons for having an abortion were weighted to reflect the proportion of U.S. abortion patients who obtain midtrimester abortions.</quote>

The first quote is from the article as it is, now. The second quote is from cited the study itself. The article claims that the results that follow are the statistics pertaining to only the responses of the late term abortion patients. The study, however, does not make that distinction in its results and in fact is meant to be a representation of all abortion patients, as the obtained reponses of the midtrimester abortion patients are scaled down to represent the group more accurately in the total number of abortion patients in the United States. The wiki article's claim is outright false and misrepresentative of late term abortion patients. In the interest of factual truth, someone please remove that segment or find a better suited set of statistics ASAP.

DGrayson (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

State to state differences

I was expecting to find an entire section in this article dealing with the state to state differences, in terms of availability, public funding, legal restrictions, legislation, etc. But there is only a single paragraph summarizing the situation. I know this article has a devoted coterie of editors, so I strongly urge you to expand that paltry paragraph into a full section. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition of abortion "in medical terms"...?

At the top of the page, there, first paragraph ... Should I insert a citation needed tag? Who says that's what an abortion means in medical terms? I don't think the layman is familiar with medical terminology for that claim to be public knowledge. -- Newagelink (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Major Shift in Abortion Demographics

I don't have time right now to incorporate this, so I post it here on the talk page -

• Study Finds Major Shift in Abortion Demographics KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory waiting periods map

The choice of ranges for the two colors on the map seemed designed to make the average waiting period look longer. While the vast majority of states mentioned in the sources have 24-hour waiting periods, they are all lumped in with the tiny minority of states that have longer periods, in the "24 hours or longer" group. In fact, if I read the sources correctly, all of the states in that category actually 24-hour waits, b/c the only states with longer requirements have enforcement stayed by a court. So now the map deceptively implies that some or all of those states have longer waiting periods, when in actuality, they're all (or nearly all) at 24 hours exactly. ~ MD Otley (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Statistics - Abortions and political party

Removed the section under statistics on abortion and political party because it does not have sufficient citations to establish that it is not WP:OR. The source cited does not appear to break down the statistics in the way presented. (Since the source publication coincides with the 2008 election, it would display marked clairvoyance if it did.) There are many other possible statistical differences between these groupings of states. Citation of reliable sources would be needed to establish connection between the results of the 2008 presidential election and abortion frequency. Zodon (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: Why is there no clear section for the Pro-Choice groups, like there is for the Pro-Life groups. I do not mean to sound ignorant or ill-informed. but someone reading a Wiki article on the topic needs clear topic headings. One glancing at this page would conclude that the article was not fair and leaned towards Pro-Life groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiteratureAdore (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps there should be an "Abortion Debate" section, such as exists in the Abortion article. Then various pro-life and pro-choice arguments can be positioned head-to-head, regardless of political affiliation. V (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

"Legalization resulted in a dramatic decrease in women dying from abortion." You what else happened in that time frame? Advances in medicine. This is like saying the raised drinking age saved lives, ignoring the seatbelt laws that came into play. 128.146.46.2 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? Besides that, what does this have to do with the article? If you're going to discuss the article, make your point clear. If you're going to discuss the topic, go elsewhere. Thanks. --13² 04:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdated Research

Many of the statistics in this article are not from recent studies. For example, an April 2009 Pew Research Center study reported significantly different numbers than the ones in this article. May I suggest that we update the statistics to more recent studies, such as the one I posted?

Also, the article states "Since 1973, over 45 million legal abortions have been performed in the United States." The source for this states that this is the period between 1973 and 2005. Most of the numbers I see reported currently are at least 50 million.

Since so much of the studies used in this article are so old, it would take a significant amount of effort to update it. Should I start updating a few things?--Minimidgy (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. But please leave older data that has no recent counterpart. For example, if an old poll in 1985 asked a question that is not asked by a more recent poll, then it's perfectly accurate for this article to give the results as long as we also say when the question was asked.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The polling data, in particular, is quite dated (of course, it's also the most difficult to keep up to date, as new polls come out all the time). In addition to the Pew poll, there's also a new Gallup poll on the issue. The results are generally consistent with those of the Pew poll. EastTN (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Only

I have an issue with this statement "Moreover, due to the Hyde Amendment, many state health programs which poor women rely on for their health care do not cover abortions; currently only 17 states (including California, Illinois and New York) offer or require such coverage." The word "only" in this case reveals the likely bias of the author. Would 30 states be enough for the author to take the world "only" out? 40 states? How many? Either way I'm taking it upon myself to remove the word "only" since it reads the same without it. The only difference being that the bias is removed. This same statement is made in Hyde Amendment so I'm removing it from there as well. Please do not put it back in without explaining why it should be there. 98.204.199.107 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Role of ultrasound in choice

I'd recommend a section, possibly integrated into another section, regarding the increased role of ultasound technology in women's choice to keep their babies. RMonWiki (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of new info in Public Opinion

Per the discussion at [[1]], I will be adding in the polling information previously provided at the Pro-life movement page, and then linking here to keep that page more concise. Let me know your thoughts on how and where to best incorporate this data. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Messy Graphs

The graphs under Abortions/demographics are in a bit of a mess. Could someone (with more skill than me) try and shuffle them into place? It would make the article look more professional. InternetGoomba (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

More polling

I have removed a polling section from the pro-life article for various reasons. If anyone wants to salvage the content, please feel free, and make reference to the source article for CC-BY-SA attribution -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Table by Year

Is there a reason that the table doesn't have Guttmacher numbers in it? It seems like it'd be easy to add an AGI column next to the CDC column, and (IMO) that would be a major improvement. A casual reader might think something very odd happened between 1997 & 1998. I'll change the table myself if it's just that no one wanted to be bothered, but I thought it best to ask on the TALK page first in case there's something controversial about the proposed change. OckRaz (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of abortions in United States

The lede in this section is inaccurate. The CDC numbers aren't the number of legal induced abortions. OckRaz (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Polling

See also: Abortion in the United States § Public opinion

Americans, as noted by Gallup in "More Americans Pro-Life Than Pro-Choice", are now being polled as Pro-Life, as opposed to Pro-Choice, for the first time since 1995, when Gallup began tracking the issue. CNN, in May 2007 earlier achieved this result, with just 45% surveying as Pro-Choice compared to 50% Pro-Life, though at the time, Gallup a week later found 49% responding Pro-Choice with only 45% Pro-Life.

Nevertheless, as Gallup now notes, abortion attitudes are indeed shifting. According to Gallup's most recent polling of the issue, the gap has now narrowed to a virtual deadlock:

Date of Poll	Pro- Life	Pro- Choice	Mixed / Neither	Don't Know What Terms Mean	No Opinion
2010, March 26-28	46%	45%	4%	2%	3%
2009, November 20-22	45%	48%	2%	2%	3%
2008, September 5-7	43%	51%	2%	1%	3%

According to Gallup's long-time polling on abortion, the majority of Americans are neither strictly Pro-Life or Pro-Choice; it depends upon circumstances. Gallup polling from 1996 to 2009 consistently reveals that when asked the question, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?", Americans repeatedly answer 'legal only under certain circumstances'. According to the poll, in any given year 48-57% say legal only under certain circumstances (for 2009, 57%), 21-34% say legal under any circumstances (for 2009, 21%), and 13-19% illegal in all circumstances (for 2009, 18%), with 1-7% having no opinion (for 2009, 4%).

"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

	Legal under any circumstances	Legal only under certain circumstances	Illegal in all circumstances	No opinion
2009 Jul 17-19	21%	57%	18%	4%
2009 May 7-10	22%	53%	23%	2%
2008 May 8-11	28%	54%	18%	2%
2007 May 10-13	26%	55%	17%	1%
2006 May 8-11	30%	53%	15%	2%

As detailed in Abortion_in_the_United_States, and further cited from the aforementioned Gallup poll on Abortion,, Americans overwhelmingly support abortion when the life of the mother is at stake, or when rape and incest has occurred, but do not support it when the woman does not want the child for any reason, or can not afford to have the child (perhaps given that adoption is the preferred alternative). They furthermore support abortion by a large margin in the 1st trimester, but only a small minority support it after the 3rd month of pregnancy. Polling by Gallup also reveals substantial support for many of the Pro-Life community's legislative initiatives.

If one looks at the historical data on the Gallup site, we see that the main cohorts in the opinion have remained generally consistent since US abortion attitudes closely divided. The largest cohort is middle of the road, favouring neither a total ban, nor total de-criminalization. One must fudge the data and use weasel words in order to ascribe the middle of the road cohort to the "pro-life" position. Historically, the "pro-life" camp has called abortion murder and has favoured a total ban on abortion. The only allowable defence in homicide is self defence. It follows that if abortion is murder, then it should only be allowed if the pregnancy itself threatens the prospective mother's life (not just her health generally). Those who allow abortion in any other circumstances are not "pro-life". The fact that Gallup follows the "pro-life" weasel wording on this does not mean we have to. Therefore

Gallup furthermore established public support for many issues supported by the Pro-Life community and opposed by the Pro-Choice community

is POV. We could also claim that the middle group is pro-choice because they allow some choice. Ermadog (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Acts of Reception and History of Common Law

When I wanted to find out how American law is based on English common law, I of course turned to wiki. Not being either a lawyer nor an American, I had no idea how to verify this. In consequence, it took a lot of clicking before finding the mention of Acts of Reception. There is a great deal more that could be said on this topic, but the easiest way to summarize it for purposes of this article is simply to point to the acts of Reception. Unfortunately, I have not yet figured out how to link to a specific section of a page and have had to resort to inelegant language to get my citation in. Any edit which cleans up the language yet retains the citation would not be challenged by me.

I think it's notable that Bouvier adopts the exact language of Coke, via Blackstone, in his Dictionary of the Law. Whether that carries more weight than Madison's commentary, I wouldn't know. However, he retains the wording dating back to Leges Henrici Primi, 1115, defining murder: the deceased must have been "a reasonable creature in rerum natura " and in the King's peace. The fetus is not deemed a reasonable creature, and until fully expelled from the womb was not an independent agent and therefore not in the King's peace. Bracton notwithstanding, the Leges deemed abortion "quasi-homicide", as did all subsequent law writers. The penalty for abortion was never as severe as for actual homicide. Citing Bracton and ignoring all the other writers, as the "pro-life" activists do, is POV. I have edited the Born alive rule page to reflect this, and am gradually working my way through the abortion project.Ermadog (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Statistics by Maternal Age?

It would be useful to have a graph showing abortion rates and/or annual number of abortions by the mother's age. Tetsuo (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but a woman who kills her unborn child is not a mother. Dylan Flaherty 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, don't go there... the definition of mother is so flexible that it can encompass the mere creation of a thing. In the broadest sense, a female is spoken of as a mother in regard to her potential or wish to breed. For instance, in infertility literature, the barren woman is often referred to as "the mother". Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just take it as a side comment. I asked about this on Talk:Abortion and found out that this topic is a third rail. Dylan Flaherty 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a graph would be useful, showing per capita abortion rates and total abortions by year. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Current Status of Abortion Law?

I'm confused as to the status of abortion law after the fetus is viable. As I understand it, Planned Parenthood v. Casey establishes the "undue burden" test for a nonviable fetus. What is the test for a viable fetus? I hear the term "health and wellbeing of the mother" used quite a bit, but I don't find that anywhere in the article and I don't know whether that is actually part of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.44.163 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is important to mention the current status of abortion in terms of the presidential election as well. This is part of the current status in this country. Where Obama was quoted saying "I am committed to protecting this constitutional right" (Obama, Jan. 22, 2012), Romney's website states that "Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us" (Romney, Sept. 12, 2012). With these two being the major competitors for this election abortion could be seeing some changes within the near future.

(Frysingerm (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC))

Even if Romney were to win the election, which is unlikely, his campaign rhetoric does not make for actual legislation. We will wait until legislative changes occur. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Unsourced and inaccurate material

The repeated insertion of unsourced and inaccurate polemical material needs to stop. This edit seems utterly inappropriate, but it is continually reinserted by an IP. As far as I am aware, no serious source considers abortion under the heading of "perinatal mortality". The leading causes of perinatal mortality in developed countries are generally understood to be congenital karyotypic anomalies, growth restriction, and maternal medical diseases. Could we see a source to support the assertions being made by the IP, per site policy? MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Congenital karyotypic anomalies? Now I have to do some homework I see. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edits by Yank

I don't see any way they could be considered helpful or constructive. He added no no sources, shoved stuff around to angle it towards his POV, and. especially, pushed the "partial-birth" nonsense.

I've used up my 1RR, and don't do tagteaming. Help from others would be good. PhGustaf (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The entire page is an uncited nightmare. Made a few changes... better now? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is a mess. Your changes helped, but maybe after the New Year... PhGustaf (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nifty chart on US state restrictions on abortion

I thought this could be used in the article somehow. If need be, I can render a free version for Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 04:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Important reference missing?

In an interview with Justice Ginsburg in 2009, there is a brief discussion of the case of STRUCK v. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, to which I find no reference on Wikiepdia. To me, this seems to have been an important case, which made it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and was on its way the SCOTUS when the Air Force changed the policy (rendering the case moot). Do others feel it should be referenced in this article or another on the subject? I don't know enough about it to write a stand-alone piece (and don't think it needs one, but I could be wrong.) HR Mitchell (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The statistics section is in adequate in several ways. First, there is too much emphasis given to results of a single polling organization, Gallup. Second, this emphasis is biased, because Gallup tends to obtain consistently more conservative political results than do various other organization. Third, the section that gives results by sub-groups such as age and region does not include either educational level or religious sub-groups.

In fact, if polls by varied organizations which include five choice categories are included ("Abortion should be": "legal in all circumstances," "legal in most circumstances," "legal in a few circumstances," "legal in no circumstances," "unsure" or equivalents), overall, they have shown that over 50% of those polled, usually 52-58%, support abortion's being legal in all or most circumstances and have done so since at least 1996, with no trend, only variation within the range. This can be grasped from perusing the results of five-category polls on the legality of abortion at http://www.pollingreport/abortion.htm. The site gives results of polls by, e.g., NBC/WSJ, Quinnipiac University, Public Religion Research Institute/Brookings Institution, CNN/ORC, Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation, Washington Post, AP-GfK Roper Corporation, American Press/Ipsos.

There have been recent polls addressing the issues of abortion views by education level and religious affiliation. The Gallup poll on self-labeling as "pro-choice" and "pro-life" by education and religion (http://www.gallup.com/poll/154946/non-christians-postgrads-highly-pro-choice) may be less useful in getting at attitudes than the Public Religion Research Millenials, Abortion, and Religion survey (http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Millenials-Abortion-and-Religion-Survey-Report.pdf) which considers education level and uses questions with five choice categories. Asiaedit (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)aisaedit

Mississippi figures

I'm wondering if the Mississippi figures shouldn't be deleted. The "ethnicity" issue is already covered better IMO under that subsection. The number themselves don't really mean that much without consideration of actual births or women eligible to give birth or something of that order. The material (and citation) try to make up for that by giving white:black ratio, but that doesn't really answer the question by birth-eligibility. Unless we're going to try to publish a table somewhere for each state (not here!) or have an article "Abortion in Mississippi", it just seems out of place in a nationwide article IMO. Student7 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

References need improvement in this article

Far too much of this article is reliant on advocacy groups like The Guttmacher Institute and very poor sources like CNSNews. Can we start working on cleaning this up? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Guttmacher Institute certainly has an advocacy arm, but it's important to note that they're widely regarded as a reliable—and in fact the most reliable—source when it comes to abortion statistics in the U.S. For example, the New York Times describes Guttmacher's statistics as "widely considered the country’s most definitive examination of abortion trends"). The Los Angeles Times writes that Guttmacher "supports abortion rights, but is (generally) respected by both sides of the debate as a provider of reliable statistics". Their statistics are much more reliable and complete than those gathered by the Centers for Disease Control, because the CDC doesn't gather statistics from a number of states, including California. MastCell ^Talk 17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Added a section: who may do abortions in which states

I have added a section listing which states allow non-physician health professionals to do abortions, and what types of abortions they are allowed to do. Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Public Opinion Numbers Woefully Out of Date

Most recent basic pro-life/pro-choice numbers are from 2011. Four years ago is forever for such a key issue. Other opinion numbers are similarly out of date. Problems like this are a bell weather for Wikipedia's current and future validity. ClaireGem (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Partial Birth Abortion" requires quotation marks

"Partial Birth Abortion" is not a medical or technical term, and is not recognized by the AMA or the ACOG or any other mainstream medical professional organization. It is a term of right-to-lifist propaganda. To use the term without putting it in quotation marks, especially in a section heading, violates WP:NPOV. I have therefore inserted quotation marks into the section heading. Goblinshark17 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In that context, it falls under WP:SCAREQUOTES. They need to be rm. If there is a medically-recognized term, perhaps that could be discussed here and that used instead. But readers would have to recognized it as well. Student7 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see leaving the quotation marks out of the section heading, but the first sentence of the section specifically informs the reader that the term is a term of propaganda, used by opponents of the procedure. In a discussion of a term like that, the term should be enclosed in quotation marks to indicate that it is being discussed. Quotation marks are similarly used earlier in the article for the terms "undue burden" and "strict scrutiny". Goblinshark17 (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you find them unwarranted, please remove them or I can, if you like. Student7 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No they are warrented, as are the quotation marks around the phrase "partial-birth abortion" when the sentence describes it as a non-medical term, which I am restoring again.

Take for instance the sentence: '"Pink-belly" is the name of a childish prank.' The quotation marks around the phrase "Pink-belly" are necessary and appropriate, and are not "scare quotes". They do not indicate skepticism about the phrase, but merely distinguish it as the subject of the sentence. Without the quotation marks you might write "Pink belly is a childish prank" but never "Pink belly is the name of a childish prank." The use of the phrase "...the name of..." requires quotation marks around the name itself. There, that's a lesson in basic English grammar provided for free by an erstwhile copy-editor. You're welcome. Goblinshark17 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

But this isn't a childish prank, these are scare quotes. Juno (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that meant to be a joke? As I have explained, quotes are NOT scare quotes but a grammatically required indicator of the role of the phrase in the sentence. Goblinshark17 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Including myself, three editors deem the use of quotation marks in this case as WP:SCAREQUOTES. Regardless of rationale, User:Goblinshark17 should stop inserting them unless that editor can muster consensus on talk. When users disagree on Wikipedia, we use consensus to decide an outcome. In this case, Goblinshark17 seems to be alone in his or her position. Please stop reinserting them. BusterD (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll defer to the consensus, but some people around here need to take a course in remedial English grammar. Goblinshark17 (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Goblinshark17 is correct. Have a look at [[2]]. This is an issue of mentioning a term rather using it. Without the quotes, the article is using the term (as if endorsing it); if the article is mentioning the term and talking about the term itself and how it is used, rather than using it directly, it needs the Use-Mention distinction quotation marks.Leostaley (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Finding out something as simple as the legal gestational limit shouldn't be so difficult

I'm not from the US and wanted to find out this info. Finding out that basic info on this article was like pulling teeth. The article is far more interested in talking about how things used to be decades ago, even in the section about how things currently are. I'm still not entirely sure.

"Timester" implies a timeframe of 270 days, broken down into 3 90-day periods. This would be a legal definition. For a biological one, see Gestation#Humans. Student7 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminology section revert

I have just changed the terminology section from:

The abortion debate has not typically dealt with a spontaneous abortion, which is commonly referred to as a miscarriage until several states passed laws in 2013 prohibiting a woman who miscarried from receiving medical treatment for 48 hours after diagnosis and forcing her to undergo an additional ultrasound prior to her procedure.

to:

The abortion debate does not deal with a spontaneous abortion, commonly referred to as miscarriage.

The latter version is how the article appeared in 2013, prior to an unsourced change that has somehow stuck ever since. I can find no sources for these supposed state laws, and can find no mention of them elsewhere in this article or in Abortion in the United States by state. Given the rather bold claim that there are states have passed laws to delay medical treatment for a miscarriage, I'm reverting the change until a source for these laws surfaces. Cannolis (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Important enough, that no one should get this far in the article without knowing that. I moved both to the top of the article under the template "distinguish." Not clear to me that miscarriage belongs there, since the phrase alone seems self-explanatory. I don't know about "delaying treatment for miscarriage." I hadn't heard that before. Student7 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abortion in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070108052648/http://www.abortionno.org:80/Resources/fastfacts.html to http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Qualifying requirements

I have restored a reference to UCSF article with color-coded map indicating which states allow non-physician health-care professionals to do abortions. Source is dated, says California only allows them to do medical abortions, which is no longer true, Cal now allows them to do aspiration abortions too, but I cannot find any more current reference to list of states which allow them to do medical abortions, which is essential information for the article (IMHO). HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abortion in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512081340/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2007/NRL06/PresidentColumn.html to http://www.nrlc.org/news/2007/NRL06/PresidentColumn.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/gop.platform/platform.all.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/426142.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead too long

Alothough the lead section has four paragraphs, they are very large and might still make the article look strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1E0C:0:30E3:93D6:B4D2:8E (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abortion in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005033006/http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/july81869.html to http://honors.syr.edu/Courses/03-04/wsp200/july81869.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013034110/http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161110225904/https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf to https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abortion in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725214230/http://www.cwluherstory.org/something-real-jane-and-me-memories-and-exhortations-of-a-feminist-ex-abortionist.html to http://www.cwluherstory.org/something-real-jane-and-me-memories-and-exhortations-of-a-feminist-ex-abortionist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130924061123/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1108-02.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1108-02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805135543/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/mississippi-abortion-ban-bill-fails-as.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/mississippi-abortion-ban-bill-fails-as.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909203530/http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2010/general/ColoradoReport.html to http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2010/general/ColoradoReport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225020023/http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/3269-02.pdf to http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/3269-02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abortion in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307072256/http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-governor-signs-nations-1st-ban-abortion-procedure-144832291.html to https://news.yahoo.com/kansas-governor-signs-nations-1st-ban-abortion-procedure-144832291.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091116133030/http://www.nchla.org/datasource/ifactsheets/4FSHydeAm22a.08.pdf to http://www.nchla.org/datasource/ifactsheets/4FSHydeAm22a.08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151028182952/http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/content/33/2/337.long to http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/content/33/2/337.long

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603181326/http://www.frtl.org/abortion/gallup%20poll%20topics.htm to http://www.frtl.org/abortion/gallup+poll+topics.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Statistics Section - biased, needs improvement

The Abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age chart is front and center, and makes a statement of declining number of abortions, while the abortions as a ratio of live births data is missing 13+ years of data, and is poorly constructed. I almost completely ignored it.

How about a chart of total reported abortions performed? Or as a ratio of live births being equally represented? Those figures tell a very different story than that of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsbohn (talk • contribs) 14:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Update this article

Welp, it shouldn’t even have to be said if people watch the news. Just this week a third state has passed draconian, restrictive abortion laws. Obviously, in the upcoming weeks and months more states will play catch up while legal groups like the ACLU fight the laws in the court (with blatant intention on both sides of going to the Supreme Court. Precedence, she said.) Update tag is required now. If not at the very least a current event tag. Trillfendi (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced map

I removed the unsourced map. It does not provide any sources at all and also it is inaccurate. At several states it states "indicates a limit at 6–8 weeks is expected to come into effect", "indicates a ban on abortion is expected to come into effect", but such laws are likely going to be struck down by courts (as they have been in the past, since such laws have been routinely introduced for years, and then struck down by courts). The only way such laws would come into force is if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade/Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Currently, according to the Supreme Court, a state cannot impose a law which places legal restrictions imposing an undue burden for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus", according to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If/when the Supreme Court changes that ruling, a map with the 6-8 weeks bans will be created, but right now it is out of place, since these are simply hypothetical restricts that are not and cannot be in effect without a Supreme Court decision. 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:50C:3058 (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The map is not inaccurate... It marks a law is expected to come into effect because if a court hasn't intervene, that's the reality on the ground. Also, in the map's description is a source for the data. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50144741

This ref was added to support "These scientific achievements, while life-saving for premature babies, have made the determination of being "viable" somewhat more complicated." but it does not discuss that it makes determining viability more complicated.

It says "Data from 2016 showed there were 486 births at this stage - and in more than 300 cases, the babies did not survive labour. Of those that did, 140 were not in a condition where attempting to save them was deemed possible and they would have been given palliative care to ease their suffering. But where treatment other than palliative care was given, just over a third of the babies survived."

So basically out of 486 births at least 440 did not survival... Leaving at most 46 that did. Thought would need to find the exact paper. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This is what they are referring to [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Page 17 here[4]

Basically 486 births at 22 weeks resulted in 15 survivors at 1 year. Of these 15, 1 in 3 were severely impaired. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Justification of each change I made

In regards to the number of abortions through history, saying "some contemporary sources" is preferable to just "contemporary sources" as the line is relying on one source that's in turn quoting a doctor from over 100 years ago estimating the number of abortions based on their personal experience.

The phrase "Control their own fertility" in regards to Margaret Sanger doesn't seem to be in the source being used, so it should either be put in quotes or changed to a different phrase.

It isn't necessary to qualify a 5-4 decision as "narrow", most other articles I've seen speaking of Supreme Court cases don't do this.

The court is who ruled in the 2013 Texas case that the legislation posed an "undue burden". The wording should thus be changed to recognize that and not come off as Wikipedia itself saying the legislature imposed an undue burden. There's no for reason for "admitting privileges" to be in quotes, it isn't used in quotes in the court case. Finally, nowhere in the case does the court say the facilities are "costly" which is why that word shouldn't be included in the sentence.

The US Senate Judiciary Committee quote is outdated (it's from 1983, abortion laws have changed quite a bit in the US since then) and thus shouldn't be quoted like it's authoritative. That's why it should just be removed.

The phrase regarding Alabama's abortion law that it offers "only two exceptions" comes off as editorializing, simply saying "two exceptions" is preferable. There is also no reason whatsoever beyond editorializing to include the sex of the members of the legislature who passed the law, so that sentence should be removed.

Adding "In May 2019, the US Supreme Court upheld an Indiana state law which requires fetuses who were aborted be buried or cremated." is adding a recent and relevant court ruling and law to the article.

The phrase "abortion is common among religiously affiliated women" isn't found in the source it's using. That line should be removed.

Finally, adding "In May 2019, a Hill-Harris poll found that a majority of Americans (55%) did not think fetal heartbeat bans were too restrictive." is adding a recent and relevant poll to the public opinion section. Edit5001 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

1. You criticise that the source references a doctor from 100 years ago. That is the definition of contemporary. It was the content of that doctor's published work were he estimated those numbers and it is presented in the article thusly. "Some contemporary sources" would suggest dispute among contemporary sources, which would need to be sourced itself.

2. The sentence is not a direct quote, and therefore can't be put in quotes. "their own" is relevant because the goal wasn't (and isn't) to enable (all of the) women to control their (the women's in general) fertility, but to enable every single woman to control her own fertility as she wants to.

3. 5-4 is mathematically the narrowest possible decision the court can make. It was also very controversial among the judges, with the 4 dissenting completely and utterly refuting it. "Narrow" reflects these two aspects.

4. The paragraph about the 2013 Texas law presents a ruling by the Supreme Court, as is declared by the very first sentence of that paragraph, so the wording does recognize it. "Admitting privilege" is in quotes because it is quoted from the court case. If it was also in quotes in the case, it would have to be put in double quotes ("'admitting privileges'"). Finally, hospital-grade facilities are by their nature costly, which is why it is in the article.

5. The US Senate Judiciary Committee is a very important source regarding US law, and it's opinion must be represented in the article. However, if you have more recent information about that topic, feel free to add it in.

6. The paragraph about developements in viability, now that it's sourced, seems fine to me, but of course it must be put after the Senate Committee part.

7. The Alabama law did allow only two exceptions, serious health risks and lethal anomalies, which is considerably less than in most other places, where there are for example economic circumstances, mental risks, rape or incest or simply the woman requesting it as reasons. "Only" is correct here.

8. It also extremely relevant that only male senators, i. e. those by definition never directly affected by this law, voted for it.

9. The part about Idaho and burial does seem relevant and can stay.

10. "Abortion is common among religiously identified women." is indeed not supported by the source, it should be changed to "Most women in the U.S. getting an abortion are religiously identified."

11. The Hill-Harris poll seems to support the claim made, so that seems fine.

Yhdwww (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

1. It's not so much the veracity source itself (though that is relevant), it's more that one source based on one claim is too little to make the sweeping claim "contemporary sources". As you mentioned, will try to find other sources on the issue.

2. The statement "control their own fertility" is both politically charged and inaccurate. Women could/can already "control their own fertility" in several ways outside of abortion and birth control. Namely natural family planning, abstaining from sex, etc. This phrase should be reworded to something more accurate and less politically charged, along the lines of "be able to obtain birth control and abortions".

3. While I get your point about the case being narrow, this word isn't expressed on other Wikipedia pages where cases were decided 5-4 and had strong dissenting opinions. You'll notice on a page like Obergefell v. Hodges, not once is the word "narrow" or "close" used to describe the ruling despite it being 5-4 with extremely strong dissenting opinions from all 4 opposing judges. Describing these type of cases should be uniform or at least similar.

4. The sentence regarding the Texas case would be better reworded to make it clear that it was the court saying this; I suggest the following - "The court ruled that the 2013 restrictions on the delivery of abortions enacted by the Texas legislature created an undue burden for women seeking an abortion..." In regards to "costly", if this word isn't in the source material it doesn't really belong on the page.

5. I understand your point on this, it's just that a lot has changed law-wise (especially at the state level) since 1983.

6. Okay.

7. What's being used as the baseline for how many exceptions an abortion law must have for its exceptions to be described as "only" or not? That's arbitrary and thus using this word comes off as politically charged/unfair.

8. I have to strongly disagree with you here. I've read many Wikipedia articles on law and this is one of the first times I've seen the sex of the legislators explicitly mentioned. This comes off as being done to push a political narrative about "men trying to control women". Nowhere else even on this page, let alone most other pages on law, are the sexes of legislators/judges/etc specifically pointed out in their decisions. This does not belong.

9-11. Agreed, thanks.

Edit5001 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

2. I disagree with your premise that, if people aren't getting raped, they're already controlling their own fertility and access to abortion and contraception doesn't constitute controlling their fertility.

4. No opposition to that proposed edit.

7. In describing survivors of a shipwreck, what number of survivors is appropriate to describe as "only"? I find "only" appropriate here.

8. In most laws the sex of the legislators is not relevant.

11: sorry, still disagree. There are a lot of polls on abortion and they can be cherry-picked to no end. They're also exceedingly dependent on specific wording of poll questions. For example, if Americans were asked instead "is a 6-week abortion ban too restrictive," they would have a very different answer, even though that's tantamount what a cardiac activity ban is. Also, as a reminder: two Wikipedians doesn't mean consensus. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

2. At best you could say it "better helps them control their fertility". The plain fact of the matter is that a woman with no access to abortion or birth control is still absolutely "in control of their own fertility".

7. Survivors of a shipwreck isn't a politically charged topic, this is, and thus the situations are incomparable. "Only" here is adding a political slant.

8. Here it isn't relevant either; to assert it is is to imply one doesn't think someone of the opposite sex can properly legislate for the other sex. This is once again political bias that has zero place on this page.

11. If you're against the heartbeat abortion ban poll being on the page, then the Roe V Wade poll should also be taken off. Gallup polls and the Hill-Harris poll indicate a majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion tighter than the 24 week viability requirement Roe V Wade laid out, meaning the wording mattered in that poll as well. Either both the heartbeat and Roe polls should go on the page, or both should be taken off. Edit5001 (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Triacylglyceride: Waiting for your response here. Edit5001 (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with Yhdwww and Tri.

• 2. Considering that one in four women have had an abortion by the time they reach 45 which suggests that their control method failed and that a surprising number of women are not even aware of their pregnancy in the early weeks, yes women need to be able to end a pregnancy if they feel it is the best thing to do in their circumstance.
• 3. As long as it contains "5/4" we can do away with "narrow".
• 7. I'm for keeping "only".
• 8. I feel that mentioning that all the yes votes were male legislators is significant and it was widely noted, but I'd rather include it as something that "someone" said rather than use WP's voice. The way it is now I'd have to agree that it does not sound encyclopedic. That's all for now...I'll try to look over my list tomorrow. Gandydancer (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

2. Gandydancer, I'd caution you against making this a discussion of whether or not women need to be able to choose to end a pregnancy. I get what you mean, but you need something like "in order to have control of their own fertility" at the end of your statement for it to be kosher here. I think it's more like Edit5001 is saying that, if you don't have a steering wheel, you still have control of a vehicle -- after all, you have the brake and accelerator. Or you could get out of the car!

7. Excuse me, Edit5001, I see now I made the wrong argument before. Here are some statements (in which we'll simplify California law somewhat):

(still 7) TRUE: In California, it is legal to have an abortion up to fetal viability.

(still 7) TRUE BUT MISLEADING: In California, it is legal to have an abortion up to fetal viability, if the pregnancy is a result of rape.

(still 7) FALSE: In California, it is legal to have an abortion up to fetal viability, only if the pregnancy is a result of rape.

(still 7) So when listing exceptions, the purpose of the "only" is to make it clear that it is an exhaustive list of exceptions. Not to add political slant. I apologize for not making this argument first. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept your points for the word "only" but I still think the phrase "control their own fertility" should be reworded. I'm also still waiting for a response to my point about the polls mentioned above. Edit5001 (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Tri, I understand what Edit5001 means and when I say, "women need to be able to end a pregnancy" I don't see how else it can be taken other than able to control their own fertility. I see no reason to change that wording. I believe that Yhdwww gave some excellent reasoning for #2. Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So you think a woman without access to abortion has no control over their own fertility? This idea that people need abortion to control their fertility is insulting to the intelligence of both men and women. Again, the most one could honestly word this sentence is "have more options to control their fertility". Edit5001 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It is insulting that you accuse me of suggesting dishonesty or of being insulting to the intelligence of both men and women alike. No where did I say that women have no control over their own fertility without access to abortion. Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The current wording of the article implies that, though. I again propose the wording "have more options to control their fertility" as a compromise here. Edit5001 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I also don't think that the source Avatar317 added warrants the current wording. Sanger doesn't even use the word "fertility" once in the source added, let alone the phrase "control their own fertility". Edit5001 (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Re #2 "have more options to control their fertility" is not acceptable as it seems to suggest that abortion is just one more option, which is far from factual. I'm suggesting that mention of Sanger and the wording be removed from the article entirely - after all, she did not even actually support abortion herself. Gandydancer (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with your suggestion of removal, agree it makes the most sense. Edit5001 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it could just be changed, removing the control bit and instead mentioning that the American Birth Control League later became Planned Parenthood. --Yhdwww (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)