Talk:Roe v. Wade

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

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.

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

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's Health B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Abortion B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Supreme Court cases B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Feminism B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Government B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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).

Template:WP1.0

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

Template:Vital article

Other talk page banners

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.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

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

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:

Template:Court Case Task Force

"Conferred" vs "Granted"

@IrishLas You changed the language of the sentence from "granted" to "conferred", asserting that the word is hard to understand for those without a law degree. In addition, you stated that my reversion of your edit was "condescending". To avoid violating 3RR, it would be best to discuss the change here.

I don't believe anything in my original reversion was in any way "condescending," and I certainly did not intend it to be so. In fact, as I mentioned, the word "conferred" is also used to describe Roe vs. Wade in legal text (e.g. it is used as such in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on its very first page ) in addition to being just a general term in the English language. Partly the reason why I reverted your edit was because of uniformity, since the page for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization uses "confer" aswell. As a non-lawyer myself, I found no issue with "conferred" in either the pages. GuardianH (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are 100% correct! Thank you for comments. You believed correctly. Sheesh, I was the one being condescending, so I'm sorry, very sorry for using that word describing you and/or your actions. Again, I'm truly sorry. TBH, I didn't know the meaning of "conferred" and I'm concidered "pretty smart" by my professor, and my parents as well :p I pretty much lacked tact for sure. I'm so sorry, my excuse is lack of sleep, though an excuse is an excuse and is me being an arse. I'm sorry. So please forgive me. IrishLas (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries GuardianH (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 30 November 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Italian.johnson1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sierrabasden (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Death of LBJ

I used the article Second inauguration of Richard Nixon as the guide for the main reason about adding details about the passing of LBJ. The passing came on the same day as Roe v. Wade and it was big news that day. People need to know that the passing overshadowed the ruling that day.

As for the justices in the majority, the only ones we should have pictures of are Chief Justice Warren Burger and Thurgood Marshall, as they both led the Supreme Court tributes on the passing. People need to know that both the passing and the ruling came on the same day and that the big news was the passing. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's your own interpretation. You don't have support from WP:SECONDARY sources saying that LBJ's death was bigger news. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Events that lead to reversal

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. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What Roe v Wade DID affirm vs didn't in light of the 2022 ruling

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. 73.184.169.140 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]