Talk:June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | 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 |
General Thoughts edit
Extended content
|
|---|
|
This isn't something appropriate to include within the article itself, but I just wanted to drop this idea for people to consider -- don't you think it's FASCINATING what is really going on here? If you don't know what's really going on here, this is my perspective: some people want to abolish abortion, but they know they can't simply pass a law that says: "We don't like abortion, therefore it is now illegal" (they know they can't do this because it would directly conflict with established case law such as Roe v. Wade). Aware of this issue, the anti-abortion advocates instead pass laws like the one at issue in June, claiming they are simply trying to "protect women's health", not outlaw abortion. This fact could not be more obvious, and yet if you read the Supreme Court briefs in June, or listen to the oral argument, NO ONE ever talks about the elephant in the room. EVERY person pretends like the only question is whether the existing law is ACTUALLY protecting women's health, when actually that has nothing to do with the case. Why can't people just come out and be honest about what their true goal is? And, I don't even understand how the hospital admitting requirement at issue in June has anything to do with protecting patients who have a complication after an abortion. If a woman experiences a complication and needs medical attention, she can just go to any hospital, correct? It makes no difference whether the doctor who performed the abortion has admitting privileges at the nearest hospital or not; ANY hospital is going to treat the woman, regardless of who her doctor is. Anyway, this debate just baffles me. If you don't like abortion, then just admit it. It is so absurd for people to pretend they are only focused on "protecting patient health" when really that has nothing to do with the law they are advocating.NYCMapper (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC) |
Responding to the above comment by NYCMapper: I believe this comment is against the Talk Page Guidelines here, which states that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Furthermore the talk page for this entry states "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". I am not sure of the proper response to your comment, whether to delete or report it, so I will defer to someone more experienced on this matter. Viktigaste (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Sentence problem edit
The sentence "The Supreme Court's decision concerns some pro-choice advocates that it will override Roe v. Wade." doesn't actually make sense as written. It's like a mutation between a sentence where "decision" is the subject of "concerns" and a sentence where "concerns" is an impersonal verb--but regardless, this sentence isn't grammatically sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.253.54 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)