This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abortion law in the United States by state article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
abortion, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
(Apologies if this is the wrong way to bring up an issue).
Maybe this comes up a lot in the debates in the US, so Americans understand the reference, but the wiki article just quotes the 14th, implies its somehow relevant, doesn't say why, and doesn't mention it again:
"""The key deliberated article of the US Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States [etc.]"""
Given that abortion relates to the unborn, and 14th relates to "born", its not at all clear how it relates to abortion, or perhaps the 14th relates to the rights of the mother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7D6D:9200:8C30:742A:52FB:F15D ( talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In the "Bans of Abortion" table in the row for South Dakota, there is an asterisk next to the value "No" in the column "Trigger Law on any abortion".
There is no other asterisk in the article. Perhaps the original editor was referring to this point that there is something unusual about South Dakota's trigger law:
South Dakota has a unique "trigger" law saying abortion will be banned there, except to save the pregnant woman's life, effective "on the date that the states are recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy."
Mississippi also has a timing associated with its trigger law:
Mississippi statute takes effect 10 days after the state’s attorney general determines in writing that the Supreme Court has overturned the ruling.
Is there anything unusual or notable about the other states' trigger laws?
Here is a reference where I saw this information. [1] Here is an older document referring to another page which is 404. [2]
Additional trigger law info. [3]
I will delete the asterisk for now and when I have good references I am sure of, I will update the table again.
The article can better work to avoid errors in language common to the press and the community-at-large to maintain neutral language.
For example - if a state allows elective abortion for 24 weeks, we refer to a 24 week ban and the word "ban" draws the focus. Of course this is nonsense - it is either an "after 24-weeks ban" or it is a "24 week allowance". Common vernacular removes neutrality.
Along with some of the prior comments on graphics, timing, and current states, the initial graph breaches neutrality again.
The topic is "Abortion Law in the United States" not "Elective Abortion Law in the United States". Thus, having an "elective abortion" graph as the initial graph in the article makes it seem that abortion is more restrictive than it actually is. While the current graphic is important, the initial graph should reflect only "abortion" - the topic of the article - not "elective abortion. kbachler ( talk) 09:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)"
Why does Montana have a purple outline on the map, indicating that there's a restriction after 18 weeks that's blocked in court? There's nothing about such a law either on this page or on the Abortion in Montana page. --04:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Jfruh ( talk) 04:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
While the conception ban in Indiana has been blocked, no abortion providers are currently open for abortion services in the state. The page should be edited to reflect the new changes by making the state grey like Wisconsin. Last Opp ( talk) 01:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey all! I just did a fairly extensive set of tweaks to the state-by-state section. I didn't really change much content, but my goals were to:
The whole section could definitely use some more updates or pruning -- I only added stuff that I happened to know about off the top of my head. For the most part I just rearranged the content that was already there. May add or delete more material later. I also think the stuff on DC and the territories should probably just be integrated into the larger state list, since in this area territorial/DC legislation functionally has the same impacts as in the states.-- Jfruh ( talk) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I mentioned this in a couple replies above to @ JesusIsLord444 but I wanted to give the topic its own section so people could chime in. Basically, I was trying to figure out how we should approach the colored outlines around states representing restrictions currently being challenged in court, as at this point all of these challenges are playing out in state courts. My thought was that once the legal process around a proposed restriction has played out in state court to its conclusion, we would take the outline off, because the law at that point has either been implemented or is permanently voided. My understanding is that this dynamic is a little different from the pre-Roe situation where state laws at variance with Roe were still "on the books" and came into play once Dobbs went into effect. Obviously we need to be on the lookout for new legislation being passed (as was the case in, e.g., South Carolina) but in general, I think that if a state passes a restriction that is subsequently exhausts its appeals throughout the state's court system, that isn't enough to keep the outline on the map. -- Jfruh ( talk) 19:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The article needs to be updated for this 50.83.52.10 ( talk) 03:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The map for this article ( [1]) has been locked over on Wikimedia -- not sure why. Can someone unlock or update? Wisconsin and Montana both need updates. Jfruh ( talk) 17:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Ohio just passed Issue 1 today—should we update the map to have a 24 week LMP instead of the red border for an injunction on the heartbeat bill? Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 05:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't Ohio be the Viability colour instead of the 22 week colour? TRJ2008 ( talk) 19:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Quote: "Abortion is explicitly legal in Washington up to the point of fetal viability, although there is no law prohibiting it afterwards."
I'm not sure what exactly does that mean... ? What does Washington state law say when it comes to abortion later in pregnancy? 41.66.99.246 ( talk) 11:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami Can you add stripes to the map to the illegal states based on the exceptions? The map can be more informative if added. Similar to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abortion_Laws-Irregular.svg. 207.96.32.81 ( talk) 17:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Rather than continuing to do a slow-mo edit war with @ JesusIsLord444, I thought I would open this up to discussion here and others can chime in on whether one or both of us is wrong.
My understanding has always been that the way constitutional provisions (and court interpretations of those provisions) and statute law in the U.S. interact is that the constitutional provisions are generally held to be supreme. Laws that violate those constitutional provisions may remain on the books, but that doesn't mean that they are active or binding. The classic example is, of course, abortion law in the wake of Roe: in many states, even though there were abortion restrictions in the law code, those laws were overridden by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. constitution. It was not necessary to challenge every single one of those laws in court in order for them to be considered repealed: prosecutors stopped attempting to enforce them once the ruling came down. Arizona, for instance, still had that 1864 law banning almost all abortions on its books, but nobody pre-Dobbs would've said "Oh, actually, abortion is illegal in Arizona because this specific law hasn't had a legal challenge against it sustained yet."
In Ohio's case, I'm not sure what it would even mean for the 22-week limit to still be in effect until it's challenged. Are there prosecutors at the state or local level who have stated their intention to file charges against doctors or patients who have or perform abortions at 23 or 24 weeks? If so, that should be spelled out and clarified in the article, along with their reasoning for why they think those charges are likely to succeed. If not, than we have a very typical case of a statute law overridden by a constitutional provision, and prosecutors understanding that and therefore not filing charges because they know those charges would be thrown out on constitutional grounds, and it makes no sense to say the 22-week ban is still in effect.
If what you're saying is that Ohio law and precedent considers 22 weeks to be the same thing as viability, and therefore the amendment as passed does not overturn a 22-week ban, that's an entirely different thing. That would also require some citations.
Anyone else is welcome to chime in if I'm misunderstanding the issue here. -- Jfruh ( talk) 20:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abortion law in the United States by state article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
abortion, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
(Apologies if this is the wrong way to bring up an issue).
Maybe this comes up a lot in the debates in the US, so Americans understand the reference, but the wiki article just quotes the 14th, implies its somehow relevant, doesn't say why, and doesn't mention it again:
"""The key deliberated article of the US Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States [etc.]"""
Given that abortion relates to the unborn, and 14th relates to "born", its not at all clear how it relates to abortion, or perhaps the 14th relates to the rights of the mother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7D6D:9200:8C30:742A:52FB:F15D ( talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
In the "Bans of Abortion" table in the row for South Dakota, there is an asterisk next to the value "No" in the column "Trigger Law on any abortion".
There is no other asterisk in the article. Perhaps the original editor was referring to this point that there is something unusual about South Dakota's trigger law:
South Dakota has a unique "trigger" law saying abortion will be banned there, except to save the pregnant woman's life, effective "on the date that the states are recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy."
Mississippi also has a timing associated with its trigger law:
Mississippi statute takes effect 10 days after the state’s attorney general determines in writing that the Supreme Court has overturned the ruling.
Is there anything unusual or notable about the other states' trigger laws?
Here is a reference where I saw this information. [1] Here is an older document referring to another page which is 404. [2]
Additional trigger law info. [3]
I will delete the asterisk for now and when I have good references I am sure of, I will update the table again.
The article can better work to avoid errors in language common to the press and the community-at-large to maintain neutral language.
For example - if a state allows elective abortion for 24 weeks, we refer to a 24 week ban and the word "ban" draws the focus. Of course this is nonsense - it is either an "after 24-weeks ban" or it is a "24 week allowance". Common vernacular removes neutrality.
Along with some of the prior comments on graphics, timing, and current states, the initial graph breaches neutrality again.
The topic is "Abortion Law in the United States" not "Elective Abortion Law in the United States". Thus, having an "elective abortion" graph as the initial graph in the article makes it seem that abortion is more restrictive than it actually is. While the current graphic is important, the initial graph should reflect only "abortion" - the topic of the article - not "elective abortion. kbachler ( talk) 09:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)"
Why does Montana have a purple outline on the map, indicating that there's a restriction after 18 weeks that's blocked in court? There's nothing about such a law either on this page or on the Abortion in Montana page. --04:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Jfruh ( talk) 04:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
While the conception ban in Indiana has been blocked, no abortion providers are currently open for abortion services in the state. The page should be edited to reflect the new changes by making the state grey like Wisconsin. Last Opp ( talk) 01:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey all! I just did a fairly extensive set of tweaks to the state-by-state section. I didn't really change much content, but my goals were to:
The whole section could definitely use some more updates or pruning -- I only added stuff that I happened to know about off the top of my head. For the most part I just rearranged the content that was already there. May add or delete more material later. I also think the stuff on DC and the territories should probably just be integrated into the larger state list, since in this area territorial/DC legislation functionally has the same impacts as in the states.-- Jfruh ( talk) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I mentioned this in a couple replies above to @ JesusIsLord444 but I wanted to give the topic its own section so people could chime in. Basically, I was trying to figure out how we should approach the colored outlines around states representing restrictions currently being challenged in court, as at this point all of these challenges are playing out in state courts. My thought was that once the legal process around a proposed restriction has played out in state court to its conclusion, we would take the outline off, because the law at that point has either been implemented or is permanently voided. My understanding is that this dynamic is a little different from the pre-Roe situation where state laws at variance with Roe were still "on the books" and came into play once Dobbs went into effect. Obviously we need to be on the lookout for new legislation being passed (as was the case in, e.g., South Carolina) but in general, I think that if a state passes a restriction that is subsequently exhausts its appeals throughout the state's court system, that isn't enough to keep the outline on the map. -- Jfruh ( talk) 19:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The article needs to be updated for this 50.83.52.10 ( talk) 03:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The map for this article ( [1]) has been locked over on Wikimedia -- not sure why. Can someone unlock or update? Wisconsin and Montana both need updates. Jfruh ( talk) 17:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Ohio just passed Issue 1 today—should we update the map to have a 24 week LMP instead of the red border for an injunction on the heartbeat bill? Dancingtudorqueen ( talk) 05:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't Ohio be the Viability colour instead of the 22 week colour? TRJ2008 ( talk) 19:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Quote: "Abortion is explicitly legal in Washington up to the point of fetal viability, although there is no law prohibiting it afterwards."
I'm not sure what exactly does that mean... ? What does Washington state law say when it comes to abortion later in pregnancy? 41.66.99.246 ( talk) 11:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami Can you add stripes to the map to the illegal states based on the exceptions? The map can be more informative if added. Similar to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abortion_Laws-Irregular.svg. 207.96.32.81 ( talk) 17:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Rather than continuing to do a slow-mo edit war with @ JesusIsLord444, I thought I would open this up to discussion here and others can chime in on whether one or both of us is wrong.
My understanding has always been that the way constitutional provisions (and court interpretations of those provisions) and statute law in the U.S. interact is that the constitutional provisions are generally held to be supreme. Laws that violate those constitutional provisions may remain on the books, but that doesn't mean that they are active or binding. The classic example is, of course, abortion law in the wake of Roe: in many states, even though there were abortion restrictions in the law code, those laws were overridden by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. constitution. It was not necessary to challenge every single one of those laws in court in order for them to be considered repealed: prosecutors stopped attempting to enforce them once the ruling came down. Arizona, for instance, still had that 1864 law banning almost all abortions on its books, but nobody pre-Dobbs would've said "Oh, actually, abortion is illegal in Arizona because this specific law hasn't had a legal challenge against it sustained yet."
In Ohio's case, I'm not sure what it would even mean for the 22-week limit to still be in effect until it's challenged. Are there prosecutors at the state or local level who have stated their intention to file charges against doctors or patients who have or perform abortions at 23 or 24 weeks? If so, that should be spelled out and clarified in the article, along with their reasoning for why they think those charges are likely to succeed. If not, than we have a very typical case of a statute law overridden by a constitutional provision, and prosecutors understanding that and therefore not filing charges because they know those charges would be thrown out on constitutional grounds, and it makes no sense to say the 22-week ban is still in effect.
If what you're saying is that Ohio law and precedent considers 22 weeks to be the same thing as viability, and therefore the amendment as passed does not overturn a 22-week ban, that's an entirely different thing. That would also require some citations.
Anyone else is welcome to chime in if I'm misunderstanding the issue here. -- Jfruh ( talk) 20:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)