Talk:Abortion in Texas

  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)Reply

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 - TP 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was pinged by TParis to weigh in here. I agree that this sort of anecdote is fundamentally unencyclopedic - if there are any encyclopedic facts to be derived here, they are things like "theoretical exceptions for rape do not, in practice, always enable rape victims to have abortions for these reasons" or "judicial bypasses to parental consent work like this" but the way it's currently written (and sourced) is not appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Todorojo:

19.06(1) exempts only the mother of the unborn child from prosecution if she self-aborts or consents to the abortion. It does not shield abortion providers or anyone else who performs or assists an unlawful abortion. Any person (other than the mother) involved in an illegal abortion in Texas is guilty of homicide.

Urnslenny (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Urnslenny:

What do you understand sections (2), (3), and (4) to mean? They are copied above. Seems they clearly exempt abortion providers.

Todorojo (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Todorojo: The key word in (2), (3), and (4) is "lawful." Abortion providers that perform LEGAL abortions are exempt from the homicide statute. Abortion providers that perform ILLEGAL abortions are guilty of homicide or murder. Abortion is no longer "lawful" in Texas because Dobbs overruled Roe and the state's pre-Roe abortion ban is in effect.

Also, the sentence was careful to say that only "illegal" abortions are acts of homicide under Texas law. That statement is indisputably correct.

Urnslenny (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Urnslenny:

That's not the only possible interpretation of the statute and veers into original research. Your conclusion is not clearly stated by the source material.

The Texas Attorney General has published guidance on the criminality of abortion and does not refer to the chapter on homicide, though it does list another chapter under which criminal prosecutions may be sustained, according to the AG's guidance. See Post-Roe Advisory.pdf (texasattorneygeneral.gov). This is the better source to cite. Todorojo (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Support your proposal, and not sure each state needs an individual page for it to begin with. Ortizesp (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose proposal. While I'm not generally in favor of having boilerplate sections and text, it is not UNDUE COATRACK to provide relevant national background information on a state article. I might be in favor of a proposal of merging or somehow organizing these articles differently, perhaps by having a more comprehensive article about abortion in the United States with state sections, so that the background and other information doesn't need to be duplicated across many articles. Andre🚐 01:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support. Semantic debates and random collection of research and advocacy are not "relevant national background". Abortion in the United States already exists and you can make a case for inclusion there if you like. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:A960:7681:3CB9:A529 (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support - but with NUANCE: Remove the terminology sections; but I'd like to see a short "Legal Context" section which gives a summary of the legal framework of how the federal government regulates healthcare somewhat, but other healthcare law is up to the states, and that allows states to set their own abortion laws, with a Roe and post-Dobbs explanation. This could be transcluded from somewhere maybe?? That way it would be the same in all state articles, and could be updated in one place. (The content I'm currently seeing in "Context" sections doesn't belong unless it is specifically referring to that state, and instead should be in the overall "Abortion in the US" article, so I also support that part of the RfC.)---Avatar317^(talk) 22:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose blanket removal and procedural objection on several grounds; this RFC's statement is neither brief nor neutral and is trying to impose a decision on 50 articles with an RFC held on only one of them, all of which goes against WP:RFC. It's important to remember that these articles have to be written for a general audience, who will require at least some context about current and historical American law concerning abortion and the (sometimes idiosyncratic) terminology used in the debate in order to understand the rest of the article. It can be rewritten somewhat to be more specific to Texas and to use sources more specific to Texas, but I don't think a sweeping removal is the way to go. --Aquillion (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  What if it can't be written to be specific to Texas, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota? because there aren't any sources specific to Texas, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota? (And remember, this RFC is for 50+ articles on all US states.) Elizium23 (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear, this article is not for all 50+ articles on all US states; per WP:CONLOCAL you can't have an RFC on one article and use it to impose a consensus on a broad swath of other articles. If your intent is to make a sweeping change like that you must hold an RFC in a broader forum where more people will see it. The outcome of this RFC can impose a consensus only for the article where it takes place (Abortion in Texas) and nowhere else. --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support; it sounds reasonable and a positive change. Information can be conveyed by links and hatnotes if otherwise the prose in the remaining sections would not suffice. SWinxy (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
• Support Such sections would need sources that directly describe X in the context of Y (in this case, abortion in the context of Texas). Boilerplate texts are indicative of lazy writing and typically do violate WP:COAT.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Question: Do we really need Abortion in X articles for every state at all? Does each state have a unique encyclopedic article about its abortion rights? Legitimately asking. Maybe the answer is yes. If the answer to that question is yes, do we then think that having some duplicated "background" info is necessary? You're proposing to remove it. I'm not sure I want to leave it in, either. But is the real question why does every state have an article to begin with? Andre🚐 22:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Andrevan: please answer the RFC topic or start a new discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  (Summoned by bot) Chiming in to say I think that it probably is worth having them for every state — there is significant variation and coverage for functionally every state, especially post-Dobbs, and it seems that media coverage and academic discussions frequently focus on states specifically. Before Roe, states also had unique abortion laws. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @WhinyTheYounger, I have moved your comment because it does not appear to address the RFC topic. Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Elizium23 I'm not sure if your WP:RFC is brief and neutral. Andre🚐 00:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Definitely agree that it is non-neutrally worded. It should be ended and one with more neutral wording created in a broader forum, if the intent is to reach a consensus for a wide number of articles. --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Hi, this is just a heads-up that this Saturday we will be holding an editathon on several abortion-related articles in Texas, including this one. Just in case anyone sees a bunch of new accounts doing edits and panics, other more experienced folks will be keeping track of their toes. Thanks, Oscar_. (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply