This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abortion in Texas 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 |
This article is rated B-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 is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Women in Red: 2019 | ||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshkaneff. Peer reviewers: Schimerine.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, can someone take a look at this section and weigh in? It looks to be, #1 as undue because the subjects are not notable, but only very encyclopedic. Highly dependent on anecdotal story telling and not in encyclopedic voice. What is the criteria for determining whose story is told? I'm sure studies have been done, similar to the last sentence, that discuss the emotional and social toll on women seeking abortion in Texas. Can we not use that?--v/r - T P 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the lede says: "...abortion providers described it as a de facto ban on abortions, as it covers abortion once "cardiac activity" in the embryo can be detected, which is earlier than most women know that they are pregnant. The characterization "de facto" is incorrect, however, because the ban on abortions based on cardiac activity (as opposed to viability) is de jure, and as such expressly outlaws most abortions."
The first sentence has citations, but the second sentence does not. It seems to be an opinion or interpretation. I do not know what it means. I'm guessing it means that the abortion restriction is actually stronger than a mere "de facto" prohibition, and that it is more properly understood as a prohibition that is indeed written into the law. But the way this idea is communicated here is confusing to me. The words "de facto" and "de jure" do not appear anywhere else in the article, just in the lede with no citation. - Tuckerlieberman ( talk) 22:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me how the first sentence in the article isn't flatly rejected by the cited statute? The first sentence says
Abortion in Texas is illegal after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Illegal abortions are punishable as acts of murder under the state’s homicide statute, which defines “individual” to include “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.”
It's true that "individual" as defined includes "an unborn child." But the cited statute on homicide explicitly excludes death of an unborn child caused by the mother or a physician:
Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or
(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.
Which would appear to mean that killing an unborn fetus is only homicidal if it's done without the consent of the mother.
Seems we should correct the clearly erroneous first line. Todorojo ( talk) 00:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an RFC because the decision spans Category:Abortion in the United States by state; most articles in that category contain this boilerplate. The "Terminology" and "Context" section of these articles typically contain two paragraphs of copied boilerplate which attempts to explain the terminology and context of abortion in the united states. The text, and the sources, do not connect the information to the U.S. state in question, or any state at all. The sources are generalized according to the lessons attempted to be imparted by the "Terminology" and "Context" sections. The Abortion in Texas article, for example, already bears a {{ relevance}} tag from September 2021.
I propose that all generalized text be removed from these sections. If there is relevant prose left it may be merged into the rest of the article or retained in an appropriately-named section. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, it is important that each state-related article remain focused on the U.S. state which is its topic. Please consider removing irrelevant and unfocused information, particular in "Terminology" and "Context" sections which have been copied over and over to each article. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently the article talks about abortion being decriminalized in some cities - I feel like this is somewhat misleading and needs more explanation. From reading the article it seems like the local city governments passed a resolution affirming their support for the right to abortion but from my reading as a non-American there seems to be little to no legal impact of these resolutions - or am I missing something? It seems like we could mislead people into thinking that abortion is legal and accessible in those cities when this does not seem to be the case. It may even lead people to act on this information and potentially travel there with the expectation to receive health care, so I think we need to be more clear here and make sure that the statements cannot be mis-interpreted. -- hroest 18:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abortion in Texas 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 |
This article is rated B-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 is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Women in Red: 2019 | ||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshkaneff. Peer reviewers: Schimerine.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, can someone take a look at this section and weigh in? It looks to be, #1 as undue because the subjects are not notable, but only very encyclopedic. Highly dependent on anecdotal story telling and not in encyclopedic voice. What is the criteria for determining whose story is told? I'm sure studies have been done, similar to the last sentence, that discuss the emotional and social toll on women seeking abortion in Texas. Can we not use that?--v/r - T P 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently, the lede says: "...abortion providers described it as a de facto ban on abortions, as it covers abortion once "cardiac activity" in the embryo can be detected, which is earlier than most women know that they are pregnant. The characterization "de facto" is incorrect, however, because the ban on abortions based on cardiac activity (as opposed to viability) is de jure, and as such expressly outlaws most abortions."
The first sentence has citations, but the second sentence does not. It seems to be an opinion or interpretation. I do not know what it means. I'm guessing it means that the abortion restriction is actually stronger than a mere "de facto" prohibition, and that it is more properly understood as a prohibition that is indeed written into the law. But the way this idea is communicated here is confusing to me. The words "de facto" and "de jure" do not appear anywhere else in the article, just in the lede with no citation. - Tuckerlieberman ( talk) 22:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me how the first sentence in the article isn't flatly rejected by the cited statute? The first sentence says
Abortion in Texas is illegal after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Illegal abortions are punishable as acts of murder under the state’s homicide statute, which defines “individual” to include “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.”
It's true that "individual" as defined includes "an unborn child." But the cited statute on homicide explicitly excludes death of an unborn child caused by the mother or a physician:
Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or
(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.
Which would appear to mean that killing an unborn fetus is only homicidal if it's done without the consent of the mother.
Seems we should correct the clearly erroneous first line. Todorojo ( talk) 00:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an RFC because the decision spans Category:Abortion in the United States by state; most articles in that category contain this boilerplate. The "Terminology" and "Context" section of these articles typically contain two paragraphs of copied boilerplate which attempts to explain the terminology and context of abortion in the united states. The text, and the sources, do not connect the information to the U.S. state in question, or any state at all. The sources are generalized according to the lessons attempted to be imparted by the "Terminology" and "Context" sections. The Abortion in Texas article, for example, already bears a {{ relevance}} tag from September 2021.
I propose that all generalized text be removed from these sections. If there is relevant prose left it may be merged into the rest of the article or retained in an appropriately-named section. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, it is important that each state-related article remain focused on the U.S. state which is its topic. Please consider removing irrelevant and unfocused information, particular in "Terminology" and "Context" sections which have been copied over and over to each article. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently the article talks about abortion being decriminalized in some cities - I feel like this is somewhat misleading and needs more explanation. From reading the article it seems like the local city governments passed a resolution affirming their support for the right to abortion but from my reading as a non-American there seems to be little to no legal impact of these resolutions - or am I missing something? It seems like we could mislead people into thinking that abortion is legal and accessible in those cities when this does not seem to be the case. It may even lead people to act on this information and potentially travel there with the expectation to receive health care, so I think we need to be more clear here and make sure that the statements cannot be mis-interpreted. -- hroest 18:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)