Talk:United States abortion-rights movement/Archive 1

message: I kindly tried to talk above the fray to User:Neutrality and sent this message. He erased it and did not respond. He ceratinly should never be an administrator. 
I believe that Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are legitimate articles. If you want to re-direct the pages, why don't you do it officially and we can have a vote? There was no reason for a re-direct since the pages both had links to Morality and legality of abortion. Since you obviously have nothing to add to the pages I would thank you to keep from re-direcing them until the time there is a vote to remove the pages to re-directs. Timothy001 19:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality should never be an Admin. He's proved it! 

message: OK, this has got to be discussed. Should this be an article or a redirect? Please post your views here, with reasons, rather than just keep changing this page about. Darksun 19:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: In the United States, the Democratic Party tends to be more "Pro-Choice" than the Republican Party.
While this is most likely true, I have two concerns.  Number one, this is a generalisation despite the veiled conditional "tends."  Secondly, I don't think "pro-choice" is an exclusively American term despite the fact it has its origins here.  Referring to America political parties and no others seems Americo-centric, which we try to stray from in respects to neutrality.  Any thoughts? --Thorns Among Our Leaves 21:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the generalization is all that off. They do tend to be but it's not necessarily a party plank. I don't think that concerns about being "Americo-centric" should ever be used to omit data. I think it is better to have a US-centric article (which states it is US-centric, which this one does) than no article at all. If we can add more scope, excellent. But don't let concerns with this highly strange form of "neutrality" lead you to think that if you can't include France, then you shouldn't talk about the USA. That's just silly. If you have more info to add there, please feel free. If you really want to include other countries, take the time to look up that information, don't just delete. --Fastfission 23:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for responding.  I typically don't delete any material before I get verification unless it's vandalism or blatantly wrong/NPOV.  --Thorns Among Our Leaves 02:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Generalisation/NPOV

message: It's not a proper noun, most in-text hits seem to be lowercase, and the WP manual of style discourages capitalizing the letter after the hyphen in hyphenated words. Most inbound links are looking for l/c, as well. Niteowlneils 02:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support as per Pro-life. Meelar (talk) 04:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Move is done! Talrias (t | e | c) 10:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to "Pro-choice"

message: I added  to the page, because I feel this has a lot of doubled uses, and isn't really that helpful as a resource in its current form. I'll get back to it when I can, but please feel free to cleanup in the meantime. -Mysekurity (have you seen this?) 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: Pro-choice → Pro-abortion – not my request, I'm just making this section so I can vote oppose. Rhobite 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Oppose, due to self-identification. Also, this article discusses debate over use of the term "pro-choice", so that should be the article's title. Rhobite 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
'Pro-choice' is, probably, a more commonly-used term than 'pro-abortion': see  for the Google test. However, a case might be made for a move under the naming conventions for the title 'pro-abortion' being less ambiguous (although whether 'what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize' trumps ambiguity I don't know). (It's also arguably more NPOV.) --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Oppose, due to self-identification. Also, this article discusses debate over use of the term "pro-choice", so that should be the article's title. Rhobite 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: :Add any additional comments
'Pro-choice' is, probably, a more commonly-used term than 'pro-abortion': see  for the Google test. However, a case might be made for a move under the naming conventions for the title 'pro-abortion' being less ambiguous (although whether 'what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize' trumps ambiguity I don't know). (It's also arguably more NPOV.) --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The "Category:Pro-choice celebrities" belongs in the see also section, but it keeps getting transfered to the categories section. Anyone know how to fix it?
:That happens with anything labeled Category.  I guess we could fix it by putting the entire hyperlink in see also instead of a wikilink.  Trying now....--Pro-Lick 01:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Successful.  Now, if someone could make sure Swatjester doesn't revert it.--Pro-Lick 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing it because it doesn't belong there. You keep putting it in the wrong section, and it does not apply as a category. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 02:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it as a see also, then Freakofnurture reverted.--Pro-Lick 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't belong there either. See also is for internal links only. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 02:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an internal link.  Simply reformatted so it doesn't end up being listed as a category.--Pro-Lick 02:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction. I meant wikilink. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with Formatting

message: Goodandevil noted this New York Times story over at Talk:Pro-life: The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God, Too. Since religious affiliation was discussed over at Pro-life, I think it's only fair that we add a paragraph about pro-choicers' religious affiliations. --Hyphen5 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's NYT: "Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God Too"

message: These have become a real mess with all the back-and-forth editing as of late, so I went ahead and cleaned them up.  Feel free to comment here. Alienus 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't just "clean up the lead paragraphs"; you basically reverted all the changes throughout the article that got consensus above. --Hyphen5 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I would like to know how many reverts you do each day. Judging by your contributions page, you seem to have a special place in your heart for edit warring. Any fair-minded reader can plainly see that you did far more than "clean up". It looks like you worked from an old version of the page, anyway. If you want to clean up repetition, make changes one-by-one, and do it based on the MOST RECENT revision, not your revision from a long time ago. Because since then I have added a bunch edits that have gained consensus on this very talk page. --Hyphen5 20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of lead paragraphs 

message: Editors of this page may want to comment at Talk:Anti-abortion_movement#RfC:__Merger_of_article_with_Pro-Choice_and_Pro-Life..  Thanks. DonaNobisPacem 21:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC at Anti-Abortion 

message: Here is how it stands now:
:Many pro-choice activists believe that abortion should be a legal option for any pregnant woman. They often highlight situations such as when a pregnant woman has no other form of birth control available, finds it morally or emotionally unacceptable to surrender a child for adoption, is unable to raise the child, or if the pregnancy risks endangering the life or health of the woman.
And this is what it was:
:Many pro-choice activists believe that abortion should be a last resort, if the pregnant woman is unable to raise the child or give it up for adoption, or if the pregnancy risks endangering the life or health of the woman.
I find the current wording problematic for a number of reasons. The second sentence is a gramatical nightmare. The clauses don't follow form: "as when.." "finds.." "is.." "if..". Here is one idea:
:Some pro-choice activists believe that abortion should be a legal option for any pregnant woman. Other pro-choice activists believe abortion should be a last resort, and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Some of these situations include if the woman was raped, if the woman's health or life is at risk, if birth control has failed, or if the woman is unable to raise the child.
Still not perfect. We need to make it clear what we are trying to convey in the 2nd paragraph. What do others think?--Andrew c 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the changes I made.  I didn't restore the mention of rape yet, but I think that I should.  I think your suggestion is reasonable.  Would you like to try to merge it in? Alienus 01:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd paragraph stuff 

message: IIRC, the NPOV tag was added when hyphen5's overhaul was reverted by Alienus. However, the majority of hyphen5's changes were eventually added, and most of the disputes have quieted down. Can we remove the NPOV tag? If users still have a problem with parts of this article, they can NPOV tag sections, and fact tag specific claims. I do not believe the whole article as it stands now deserves the tag. What do you say? (copied from pro-life)--Andrew c 16:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support ackoz  21:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag? 

message: There are many citations that could be used to show growing suport for pro-life Democrats but try this one from Newsweek on for size. Briancua 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your responsibility to add citations for the assertions you make to the article; if you don't do it yourself, others will just restore the  tag. Catamorphism 10:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Newsweek article says "Four years ago, says Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life, she couldn't get other Democrats to return her phone calls."  One year ago DFLA announced the plans for their 95-10 Initiative at "a national press conference at the Democratic National Committee.  Last year the DNC, the DSCC and the DCCC were all   recruiting pro-life Democrats to run.  Today, one of the top tier candidates is Bob Casey, Jr., a very popular figure in Penn. who is going to knock off Rick Santorum.  Congressman Tim Roemer, a member fo the 9/11 Commission and candidate for DNC has praised them.  In their 2005 book, Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future, Paul Begala and James Carville praise DFLA's 95-10 Initiative. In the book they say "The 95-10 Initiative is built around seventeen concrete policy proposals that would reduce the number of abortions.... We believe these proposals would do more to prevent abortions than all the speeches, all the marches and all the campaign ads the pro-lifers have used over the past 30 years." They go on to call it "both good politics and, we think, good policy."  Finally, even DFLA's critics admit that they have a "huge following."  When 4 years ago you can't get your phone calls returned but today Begala and Carville are praising you, when a few years ago Terry McCauliffe was throwing you out of the DNC becasue you asked for a link on their webpage and today Howard Dean is welcoming you in to announce your major legislative initaitves, I think this shows signs of growing support.Briancua 13:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like I said, it's your responsibility to add citations for the assertions you make to the article; if you don't do it yourself, others will just restore the  tag. Posting these on the talk page is non-constructive. Catamorphism 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Views 

message: There was a page on A woman's right to choose that was voted a long time ago to be merged here. I attempted to add a sentence about this slogan, but it was reverted. Could we decide where we want this information? Or is there no need to mention this slogan at all? Should we recreate the individual slogal page? Here is the content of the old article:
:The slogan "a woman's right to choose" asserts the position that every pregnant adult female should have an absolute right to choosing abortion. It is primarily used by advocates of loosening legal restrictions on abortion, especially in the United States.
:The slogan casts the debate over abortion in terms of the personal rights of the pregnant woman as recognized in United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.
--Andrew c 14:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the usage of the slogan itself; it's probably a good thing to incorporate into the article. However, it seemed to have been dumped into an unfitting paragraph, which is why I reverted it. I think it would better fit in the section about terminology. Sorry about the accidental POV tag mix-up there! romarin[talk to her ] 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to merge content? 

message: Just wondering why the term anti-abortion is being used, but no the term anti-Life?  People obviously do not like the word anti (Therefore being anti-anti) and it is only used to negatively portray pro-life.  I think, either end the use of "anit-aborition" or use both "anti-abortion" and "anti-life" just as much.  Am I right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.129.247.188 (talk • contribs) .
:There are certainly some who would agree with you, but there is, in my opinion, a clear difference here. Being "anti-abortion" means you are against abortion, right? Pro-life people are against abortion, thus "anti-abortion" could be deemed an appropriate term (although it is not all-encompassing; some people who consider themselves "pro-life" are also concerned with other issues besides abortion, such as the death penalty, and feel that the term "anti-abortion" doesn't apply to them in that light). 
:However, people who are in favor of legal and safe abortion, people generally referred to as "pro-choice", are not against life by any stretch of the imagination. The position is, among other things (see pro-choice for more information) very concerned with the lives of millions of women who are faced with unplanned, unwanted, or dangerous pregnancies. A term such as "anti-life" is simply not applicable to this position, and is generally used only by those on the extreme side of the pro-life movement. 
:Another thing to mention is that there is currently debate over the use of the term "anti-abortion", and you can see the conversations on Talk:Anti-abortion movement. 
:Hope this answers your question. Also, in the future, if you could sign your comments by writing ~~~~ that would be great. Thanks, romarin[talk to her ] 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  common sense 

message: An anonymous user recently suggested merging this page with reproductive rights; please go to the RR talk page for discussion. Thank you! romarin[talk to her ] 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one gave any feedback on the matter at all, I have gone ahead and removed the merge tag. Now, what about that other one? It's been up for quite a while, and unless I'm mistaken, no one is really discussing the matter anymore... romarin[talk to her ] 14:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with [[Reproductive rights]]?

message: In the context of abortion,
* Pro-Life refers to the support for state policy to force women into not having an abortion in order to protect unborn fetuses.
* Pro-Choice refers to the support for state policy to allow women to choose whether she could abort her pregnancy or whether she could continue with her pregnancy (even against doctors advice).
* Pro-Abortion refers to the support for state policy to force women into having an abortion in order to control birthrates and/or population growth.
aCute 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: aCute: These distinctions do clarify that there are people/countries who could be considered "pro-abortion" in the strictest sense. However, with regards to "Pro-Life" I think it would be more accurate to say that it "refers to the support for state policy to restrict or outlaw abortions in order to protect unborn embryos and fetuses." In a free, democratic society, it is impossible to "force" a woman from having an abortion, just as it is impossible to "force" minors from drinking. LotR 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms 

message: Jtdirl, in your most recent revert in your edit war against Romarin and I, you wrote:
: (rv - deleting most of an article is regarded as vandalism and under WP may lead to a block)
Now, I'm going to WP:AGF here and avoid reading this as a direct threat to block us for reverting your WP:POV insertions.  I'm sure you didn't mean to pretend that our content dispute constitutes vandalism, as much as I'm sure you know WP:BLOCK does not permit you to use your admin rights to win content disputes.
And I'm absolutely certain you know better than to threaten to abuse your admin rights to get your way on this article, because I know you don't want me to post a complaint on WP:ANI, much less launch a full RFC.  I'm so certain that I'm not going to immediately report you.  I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding.  Right?
We are all equals here, admins or not, and we are all going to work together as equals to make this a better article.  Nobody is going to muscle in and take over, and the sysop bit cannot grant immunity from the WP:NPOV requirement.  I hope we're on the same wavelength here and look forward to working with you as an equal. See above for the first step. Al 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a veteran of several contoversial articles I would highly endorse the incremental evolution rather than revolution approach to major rewrites. The proposed changes do have a POV slant to them but I suspect Jtdirl doesn't realise this as it's always difficult to see how what you write betrays your POV even when you try very hard to be neutral. The pro-abortion redirect mentioned above is a tricky one and I think the gun control solution suggested is a good one.  Sophia 08:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the article was so poor (unsourced, Americocentric, repeating the same point over and over, poorly edited, with the basic facts about Roe versus Wade wrong!) a major rewrite was called for. Over the years here I've been called "pro-life" by pro-choicers, and "pro-choice" by pro-lifers (and a republican by monarchists, a monarchist by republicans, a Unionist by Irish republicans, and Irish Republican by Unionists, etc). Actually on the issue of abortion I am in neither camp. I see the merits in both cases and voted for abortion in the Irish referenda on the issue. I remember some years ago a row over both the pro-life and pro-choice articles where the point was made that both sides protected their POV article to the death, and would not let anything remotely neutral into their article. The antics here just prove it. I'd love if people actually offered a critique of I wrote so that it can be improved, and any (unintended) bias could be fixed. Complete deletion is not an option. Starting from the substandard nonsense that was there is not workable. The article's inability to get elementary facts write made the article a joke. Wikipedia deserves better than that having substandard POV rubbish as its article on pro-choice. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love if people actually offered a critique of I wrote so that it can be improved ... I critiqued your edits on pro-life, and what did I get in return?--Andrew c 03:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Jtdirl, we would like to have a chance to critique your changes. However, you are not giving us one. As as been said several times by various editors, it would be a lot more helpful if you would make changes a bit at a time, rather than all at once. Then, we would be able to look more objectively at what you're doing and start trying to come to a concensus about it. I really don't see any other way to go about it here. romarin[talk to her ] 22:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin rights 

message: Everyone who thinks this article is terrible, and needs 5+ disclaimers at the top, could you perhaps make a laundry list of concerns so everyone can discuss and perhaps work on the article together. It seems that a number of folk are not seeing eye to eye, and if these concerns are voiced on talk, at least someone (like me) can be made aware of the issues and problems with this article. Thank you.--Andrew c 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll echo that.  A laundry list would be great... and constructive! -GTBacchus(talk) 01:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article really so bad? 

message: This article is being tagged to death.
The purpose of tags is to help people recognize when an article has a specific need for remediation, both so that they can exercise care in trusting the contents and so that they can jump in to fix it up.  When all a reader can see is tags, we have lost track of this purpose and allowed them to be abused so as to make an article look bad.
At this point, I've removed all tags.  Perhaps some of them deserve to be restored, but not all of them.  Let's decide which, if any, still apply, right here in Talk. This will avoid the silly edit war. Al 06:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cheap editing to just keep replacing tags because you've lost the intelectual battle on the talk page - I support no tags unless someone has a very particular concern about a specific area.  Sophia 11:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing unilateral about it.  Alienus' removal of those tags is supported on this talk page in detail, I haven't seen a sigle tag restorer make a productive point through this whole revert war.  Please change that. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And I will remove them as often as necessary, because they are excessive.  You can insert one or two small ones, if and only if you explain your reasoning here.  Otherwise, they're gone. Al 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it. While you're at it, make the exact same request of all the other people who have removed your huge, distracting tags.  Let's see how that works for you, eh? Al 23:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: * Worldview
** A pre-occupation with the US, US law and US practice that doesn't mention the rest of the world anywhere and where mention of the rest of the world was deleted by Alienus. 
** A failure to use captions in photographs that highlighted the fact that it wasn't "the Supreme Court" but the US Supreme Court that people were outside. Guess what, there are 278 supreme courts in the world, not just one!
** A reference (wrong) only to US law, not to legal systems, legal judgments and legal principles anywhere else on the planet but the US. 
* Quality and objectivity of writing. 
** Non-neutral language repeatedly used. 
***Using the word supportive before rights is loaded. Rights are presumed to be something to be defended, hence the deliberate use for promotional reasons of the word by both pro-life and pro-choice campaigners. "Supporting" a right implicitly implies a right exists and people are upholding that. Under NPOV we cannot say that, irrespective of whether it is the "right to choose", the "right to life of the unborn", the "right to execute criminals" or any other supposed right. It is elementary NPOV language. The term "right" is subjective in the debate. Any term that implies validity to the subjective claim by either side contravenes NPOV. There are numerous simple ways to neutralise the language, for example, Pro-choice campaigners believe in what they define as "reproductive rights", with the equivalent sentence in the pro-life article Pro-life campaigners belive in what they define as the "right to life of the unborn".  
***"Medical studies have definitely supported the latter." No. That study says that. We cannot say studies have definitely supported anything unless we link every study. A neutral wording would have said that that source reached that conclusion. Saying one study on any topic definitely supports anything is something no article can say, anymore than pro-lifers can claim in the pro-life article that because one study somewhere might say so, "medical studies have definitely supported . . . the view that abortion damages women." It is a basic NPOV faux pas to make such a claim or call studies "definitive". 
***The summaries and explanations of the pro-choice beliefs are unsourced, simplistic and POV. 
*** Using South Dakota reproductive rights controversy as the page link to an article when that is not the name of the article. That name was rejected as POV and an NPOV name given instead. 
* Factual reliability of information 
** The definition of Roe versus Wade is rubbish. The US Supreme Court did not define a right to abortion per se. It made two rulings:
*** That abortion was a federal issue, not as before a state issue.
*** That the right to privacy contained within it an implicit right to terminate a pregnancy, and as the right to privacy was possessed by all born humans, other issues, like the alleged rights of the foetus, didn't arise as part of the judgment. If they had decided that abortion was a state matter, the whole issue of abortion would be different (which is why pro-choice campaigners are not campaigning to get the Supreme Court to change their minds on a right to abortion, but to change their minds on the issue of whether it is a federal or state matter, in the belief that individual states are more likely to reach a different conclusion on abortion as a right, and individual states' constitutions are more likely to be amendable to recognise the supposed "right to life of the unborn" than the federal constitution, which is extremely difficult to amend. Equally if they had relied on a different part of constitutional law, not the right to privacy, a different conclusion might have been reached. It is astonishing that an article on pro-choice can get Roe versus Wade so chronically wrong. If people were to rely on this article they'd have no understanding of why pro-choice campaigners are so determined to keep the abortion issue federal, and why pro-life campaigners are so determined to make the abortion issue state again. (Nor does the article cover the obvious requirement to explain how attitudes on abortion in the US have changed, from criminalisation from the 1820s to legalisation in the 1970s. 
* Constant repetition of the same sentences — the political framing argument is repeated in detail throughout the article over and over again. 
* No sourcing
** No references. 
** Little sourcing to any of the claims. 
** No footnotes. 
Among the many many things missing from this article are
# An accurate definition. Pro-choice is not a campaign. It is a set of values that leads those who share those values to be involved in a campaign.
# No mention of the theoretical framework which shapes the abortion debate. Without that it makes it sound like pro-choice and pro-life campaigners disagree simply on the issue of termination as an abstract concept. They disagree because they define pregnancy differently and because they disagree on whether there are one or two lives involved. That point is explained in the first minute of the first lecture anyone takes on the issue of abortion. How an article purporting to be about pro-choice could fail to cover that is mindboggling. It is like the article on the pope not mentioning the Roman Catholic Church or an article on foreign policy under Bush not mentioning the fact that he is a republican or the impact of neo-cons on current US foreign policy. If you don't explain the basics then how do you explain how some pro-choicers oppose abortion in some contexts and some pro-lifers support it in some circumstances. They do that because the underlying beliefs they hold are marginally different than others in the broad category of pro-choice or pro-life, eg, the abortion is always wrong/always right view, based on an absolute belief in the rights of the unborn/of the woman exclusively, versus the belief that pregnancy involves two lives but with varying rights (woman superior in first trimester, co-equal in second, right of the foetus in the third, subject to exceptions). 
# Any mention of pro-choice activists in the UK, which legalised abortion in the 1967 Act, having moderated the law somewhat in the 1930s, in France, where Simone Veil introduced the abortion law in the 1970s, the abortion battles in Italy, Spain and Ireland, the legalising of abortion in South Africa in the 1990s and the impact of pro-choice campaigning on the ANC in pushing for a right to choose, etc. Either they and everywhere else goes in, or the US is taken out. The current article cannot stand as it is, as an American article by Americans for Americans that ignores the rest of the planet. 
That is only some of the flaws with this substandard, poorly written, shoddily defined, frequently inaccurate article. In its current state it has a snowball's chance in hell of being defined as a "good Wikipedia article" let alone a featured one. It is neither comprehensive nor accurate, neither reliable nor trustworthy. But then this article (and the pro-life one) is famed for that. It regularly has "article sitters" who use it to push their agenda (pro-choice here), as shown with the frequently absurd external links put on this page. At this stage most long-standing users have given up trying to fix this article. Most of them have been burned by the POV-pushing that happens here. 
Re my comments on Alienus "vandalising" this article by deleting stuff over and over again, Wikipedia rules are quite clear. The removal of dispute tags is one of the links listed by Wikipedia as vandalism and defined as "official policy on the English Wikipedia".
:Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.
Wikipedia's policy on that is quite clear. 
:Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others.
FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jtdirl, that's very helpful.  As for Alienus' "vandalism", I tend to think of that in terms of the spirit of the rule, i.e., it's vandalism if you're trying to make Wikipedia worse, not better.  I don't believe that about Alienus; I'm fully convinced he's acting in good faith, therefore it can't be vandalism.  If he were to decide he didn't care anymore, and just start capriciously removing tags without explaining himself, that would be vandalism.  Anyway, wouldn't you rather improve this article than talk about Alienus? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've addressed two (and a half?) items just now.  I'll wait and see how that feels to people before trying more. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of how bad this article is

message: These aren't super easy to find.  Feel free to add to the list, and comment if desired. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources