Talk:Roe v. Wade: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:22, 14 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roe v. Wade article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Roe v. Wade is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 26, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 5, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
April 21, 2012	Featured article review	Demoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 22, 2005, January 22, 2006, January 22, 2007, January 22, 2008, January 22, 2009, January 22, 2010, January 22, 2011, January 22, 2015, and January 22, 2023.
Current status: Former featured article

Women's Health High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Abortion Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism High‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Lawrence Solomon (2008-07-08). "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming". CBS News.

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.

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Blackmun's "Chronological" Entry

The only reason I've been mentioning about Harry Blackmun's "chronological" entry in the Supreme Court decision is to sum up the day. He wrote "Abortion decisions down. LBJ dies." I only note this to mention the role that the Supreme Court also played in paying tribute to LBJ. It is relevant, not trivia, because of who led the SCOTUS tributes. -- SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk)

Justices in the Majority

For the justices in the majority, should we keep the picture of just Harry Blackmun, as he wrote the majority opinion, or can we also add those of Chief Justice of Warren Burger and Thurgood Marshall? The only reason I'm asking this is because the big news the day of Roe v. Wade was the passing of LBJ and although both Burger and Marshall were in the majority, they also led the SCOTUS tributes on the passing. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of LBJ

One thing that I mentioned here that was removed, but I feel that it needs to be mentioned is that the news of Roe v. Wade was overshadowed by that of the passing of LBJ and that both happened on the same day. The passing of LBJ overshadowed Roe v. Wade and was the banner headlines on newspapers the day after. I used Golden Age Nursing Home fire article as the guide, as that happened the day after the assassination of JFK, but the news of it was overshadowed by the assassination. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy in dates

Under History of the case, there is an apparent discrepancy between the second paragraph, which states that McCorvey discovered her pregnancy in June 1969, and the third, which states that she gave birth on June 2, 1970. Both cite apparently reliable sources, which do support the respective claims: the first date is given by Arlidge in The Lawyers Who Made America, while the second is given by Prager in Jane Roe's Baby Tells Her Story. How should this be resolved?

Personally, looking at both sources, I'm inclined to attribute this to a mistake of fact on Arlidge's part, even if his book is generally reliable. The claim for the date of birth is more specific and more recent, and the article indicates it's based on the author's access to primary sources. Arlidge does not indicate where he got the date for his claim. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DISPLAYTITLE:Talk:''Roe v. Wade''}}
+{{Talk header}}
+{{American English}}
+{{Article history
-{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
-{{ArbCom sanctions - abortion}}
-{{ArticleHistory
 |action1=FAC
 |action1date=2005-01-26, 05:11:45
@@ Line 34: / Line 32: @@
 |otd9date=2023-01-22|otd9oldid=1135041042
 }}
-{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
-{{WikiProject Women's Health|class=B|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject Women's Health|importance=High}}
-{{WikiProject Abortion|class=B|importance=top}}
+{{WikiProject Abortion|importance=top}}
-{{WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases|class=B|importance=top}}
+{{WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases|importance=top}}
-{{WikiProject Law|class=B|importance=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}}
-{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=high|American=yes|American-importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|American=yes|American-importance=high}}
-{{WikiProject Women's History|class=B|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=high}}
-{{WikiProject Feminism|class=B|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=High}}
-{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=mid|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}
-{{WP1.0|class=B|importance=Low|v0.5=pass|category=Socsci}}
-{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia|Roe_vs_wade.ogg}}
-{{Vital article|topic=Society|level=5|class=B}}
 }}
+{{Press
-{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
-{{American English}}
-{{annual readership|days=500|scale=log|width=570}}
-{{press
 | author=[[Lawrence Solomon]]
 | date=2008-07-08
@@ Line 57: / Line 50: @@
 | org=[[CBS News]]
 }}
+{{DISPLAYTITLE:Talk:''Roe v. Wade''}}
+{{ArbCom sanctions - abortion}}
+{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
+{{annual readership|days=500|scale=log|width=570}}
 {{Backwards copy|authorlist=Simon, Rita J.; Abdel-Moneim, Mohamed Alaa|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GK00DwAAQBAJ&pg=PP64|title=Public Opinion in the United States: Studies of Race, Religion, Gender, and Issues That Matter|year=2009|org=Routledge|id=127885807|comments=This book first published in 2009 copies portions of this article that appear in [[Special:Diff/127885807#Gonzales v. Carhart|revisions as early as 2007]].}}
 }}
@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 The only reason I've been mentioning about Harry Blackmun's "chronological" entry in the Supreme Court decision is to sum up the day. He wrote "Abortion decisions down. LBJ dies." I only note this to mention the role that the Supreme Court also played in paying tribute to LBJ. It is relevant, not trivia, because of who led the SCOTUS tributes. -- [[User:SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070|SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070]] ([[User talk:SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070|talk]])
-== Events that lead to reversal ==
+== Justices in the Majority ==
+For the justices in the majority, should we keep the picture of just Harry Blackmun, as he wrote the majority opinion, or can we also add those of Chief Justice of [[Warren Burger]] and [[Thurgood Marshall]]? The only reason I'm asking this is because the big news the day of ''Roe v. Wade'' was the passing of LBJ and although both Burger and Marshall were in the majority, they also led the SCOTUS tributes on the passing. [[User:SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070|SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070]] ([[User talk:SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070|talk]]) 01:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
+== Death of LBJ ==
-The reversal of Roe v. Wade didn't just fall out of the sky; it was a result of a multi-decade concerted effort by the [[Christian right]] to remake the federal judiciary, and was ultimately made possible by Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump. Yet this article mentions absolutely nothing about this. I have added a sentence in the lead about how it was made possible by the ideological shift during the Trump administration, but I believe more is needed in the Dobbs section. While I understand mentioning this could infringe on NPOV, the events that lead to Roe's reversal were indeed unusual and extraordinary, something people on both sides of the issue should be able to agree upon. [[User:Bneu2013|Bneu2013]] ([[User talk:Bneu2013|talk]]) 05:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
+One thing that I mentioned here that was removed, but I feel that it needs to be mentioned is that the news of ''Roe v. Wade'' was overshadowed by that of the passing of LBJ and that both happened on the same day. The passing of LBJ overshadowed ''Roe v. Wade'' and was the banner headlines on newspapers the day after. I used [[Golden Age Nursing Home fire]] article as the guide, as that happened the day after the [[assassination of JFK]], but the news of it was overshadowed by the assassination. [[User:SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070|SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070]] ([[User talk:SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070|talk]]) 23:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
-== What Roe v Wade DID affirm vs didn't in light of the 2022 ruling ==
+== Discrepancy in dates ==
-The text should be amended to say that it affirmed her right to privacy regarding a medical procedure. As the court ruled I. 2022, it specifically addressed privacy but did not address or affirm the right to the procedure itself. [[Special:Contributions/73.184.169.140|73.184.169.140]] ([[User talk:73.184.169.140|talk]]) 00:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
+Under [[Roe v. Wade#History of the case|History of the case]], there is an apparent discrepancy between the second paragraph, which states that McCorvey discovered her pregnancy in June 1969, and the third, which states that she gave birth on June 2, 1970. Both cite apparently reliable sources, which do support the respective claims: the first date is given by Arlidge in [https://books.google.com/books?id=1Uw0DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA176 The Lawyers Who Made America], while the second is given by Prager in [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/jane-roe-v-wade-baby-norma-mccorvey/620009/ Jane Roe's Baby Tells Her Story]. How should this be resolved?
-== Regarding Viability ==
+Personally, looking at both sources, I'm inclined to attribute this to a mistake of fact on Arlidge's part, even if his book is generally reliable. The claim for the date of birth is more specific and more recent, and the article indicates it's based on the author's access to primary sources. Arlidge does not indicate where he got the date for his claim. [[User:Agreeable-absurdist|Agreeable-absurdist]] ([[User talk:Agreeable-absurdist|talk]]) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
-The article should specifically mention in the first sentence that Roe only applied until viability (20-24 weeks into pregnancy). There is a lot of confusion caused by some politicians implying that codifying Roe would allow abortion until birth. [[User:Kdr202310|Kdr202310]] ([[User talk:Kdr202310|talk]]) 11:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)