Talk:Minors and abortion

Heritage Foundation and interstate travel

The Heritage Foundation did not find that minors seeking abortion did not travel out of state, therefore the argument still stands. The argument may not be as affective, but we don't make any positive claim regarding interstate travel and abortion rate. We just state that one argument used against the laws is that some women will travel out of state for an abortion. Seems simple enough? The edits are problematic because it is inserting text that is not an argument against in the argument against section. I believe the recent edits have addressed the concerns raised by the study, but I'm glad to discuss any further issues with this section.-Andrew c 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Problematic study

An anonymous editor has inserted information from a problematic study into this article. The anon has presented the findings of this study as the "mortality rate" for abortion, when, in fact, the study did not examine deaths that were directly caused by medical complications related to an abortion procedure. It simply compared the death rates for women who'd had an abortion, miscarriage, or given birth, but died for other reasons. Thus, these data cannot be used to represent the death rate of abortion, because the study did not tabulate deaths that were the result of abortion-related medical complications (and, thus, deaths that were directly caused by abortion). This issue has been discussed before at Talk:Abortion/Archive 25 and Talk:Abortion/Archive 20. -Severa (!!!) 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE --- In deleting this material citing peer reviewed studies, Severa and other censors who have wholesale removed citations I've supplied to peer reviewed studis are simply trying to prevent advocates of parental notice from putting forward their own evidence and arguments case for why they favor parental notice. The argument against parental notice claiming that notifcation delays abortion which increases the risk of death relies on far more problematic claims and "evidence."

Severa also miscontrues the study, which if he or she actually read the whole study, not just the abstract, examines the "preganancy associated mortality rates" as defined by US and international standards and is less subject to bias and misjudgement because it based on a record based analysis not just the "best guess" of the doctor filling out the death certificate.

For a thorough review of the literature on deaths associated with abortion and limits and misinformation involved in publcations related to this issue, see Deaths associated with abortion compared to childbirth: a review of new and old data and the medical and legal implications. Reardon DC, Strahan TW, Thorp JM, Shuping MW. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy. 2004; 20(2):279-327.

I could add even more studies showing that abortion is associated with higher death rates, including one published in the British Medical Journal showing that looked at rates of suicide attempts both before the pregnancy and after the pregnancy. Before the pregnancy, there was no significant difference between the two groups, but after the pregnancy those who had abortions had an elevated rate of sucide attempts compared to those who allowed the pregnancy to follow a natural course.

If there was something "problematic" about this study or other studies cited in the arguments for parental notice, they would not have been accepted in a top journals. What are the credentials of the anonymous "Severa" that give him or her more expertise in this area than Gissler, Reardon, and others? And by what right does Severa or others presume to censor the position put forward by parental notice advocates for their own position? Why the need to edit out our citations, arguments? Are you afraid your arguments won't look as good if we are given a fair opportunity to present our arguments?

Isn't it terribly ironic that abortion proponents say (1) teens should be able to have abortions without parent notice or consent because there are no signficant health risks of abortion, then, as put forward in the argument against parental notice (2) "Delaying an abortion even if only by a couple of days, increases the likelihood of complications.." So let's hurry it up and not waste time on gathering facts, options, and the involvement of parents?! Either there are not risks or there are risks. You can't have it both ways. If there is ANY danger at all, shouldn't parents be involved in weighing those risks....and also in questioning the abortion counselor since it is at least arguable that the counselor will be as biased as Severa and decide not to otherwise tell the girl about studies he or she dismisses as "problematic" and not worth of consideration?

Ask any of the post-abortion groups, whatever their political leanings, and you will learn that women who have actually had abortions -- perhaps especially when they were teens -- overwhelmingly report that the information they were given before hand was incomplete and biased toward an understatement of the emotional effects of abortion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.149.229.63 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 16 June 2007.

First things first, please sign all comments you make on talk pages. You do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This way, everyone can keep track of who is saying what (also, indenting replies helps, you do this by typing a colon for each indent. try typing two colons before your next reply to indent twice under my reply). Next, wikipedia does not allow personal attacks on other editors, and we try to always assume good faith. This helps dialogs stay civil and friendly. Calling another editor biased or accusing others of censorship are serious accusations, and shouldn't be taken lightly. Next, you are obviously passionate about this topic, and sometimes personal passion can get in the way with neutral articles, and productive talk page discussions. A talk page should not be the place to argue specific positions. For example, we shouldn't be talking about the merits or weaknesses of parental notification legislation. We should be discussing how to improve the article.

Now, onto your specific changes to the article. I believe you are using original research when you are citing these studies. The conclusions of these studies are not "There should be laws that make parents be involved in their minor child's abortion decision". You are not citing a source that says these are reasons for parental notification laws, therefore a reader will not be able to verify that these arguments are used in support for such legislation. While it may be true that abortion increases suicide rates, we don't have any source that related that statistic to parental notification. Connecting the dots like that is considered original research, and forbidden on wikipedia. So before we get into the meat of these studies themselves, can you find a source that actually related them to notification laws? Hope this helps.-Andrew c 21:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 69.149.229.63, I'd ask you to please assume good faith before you characterise edits by other users as "vandalism" and "censorship." You have made only two edits, both to this article, so I will assume that you are new to Wikipedia and might not be familiar with some things yet. All content on Wikipedia must adhere to the standards set in policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V. Proposing an idea for an article on that article's Talk page is always a good idea, as this allows other users to comment and build consensus over what to do, and helps to prevent unproductive edit-warring. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum, so it is not the place for "advocates of parental notice to put forward their own evidence and arguments for why they favor parental notice." None of the studies added actually suggest suicide or mortality risk as a reason for parental notification. So, using these studies, which do not address parental notification, to support claims about parental notification is original research. A source would need to suggest, explicitly, that there should be parental notification for these reasons for it to be used to support these points in the article. -Severa (!!!) 22:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Many minors of childbearing age are sufficiently mature to make abortion decisions by themselves

Sounds like a perfectly good argument in opposition. A reference need not be cited because common sense tells us that some minors are in fact mature enough. Nor is the subjectivity of "mature" an issue - "mature" means capable of making an informed decision about abortion without parental involvement. --Vptes1 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a citation IS needed. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, i.e. we cannot be the first place to make an argument. We only summarize existing reliable sources. That is the point of an encyclopedia. If no one notable has ever made the claim that minors of childbearing age are sufficiently mature to make abortion decisions by themselve, then that claim has no place in this article. Period. And if someone has used that argument before, then we can simply add that citation. Make sense? Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok...I'm adding a citation. --Vptes1 (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By contrast, though, it is simple to find reliable sources that say that minors are not mature enough, since maturity is open to opinion. So then, do we have "Minors are mature" under opposing arguments and "Minors are not mature" under supporting arguments? It seems a bit awkward, but may be the best way to fairly represent both points of view. KatrinasForest (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of minor's rights to not be forced to have an abortion by the parents? 24.19.171.111 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Debate Section - "Back Alley" Abortions Citations

I was looking at some of the references listed in the debate section, and I noticed that the two listed for the "back alley" abortions argument are pretty questionable, at least in my mind.

The first is anecdotal at best. It's a news story about one Detroit girl whose boyfriend used a bat to cause her to miscarry. While it's possible the parental consent law in Michigan had something to do with this case, there is no mention of this in the article. What's more, we're talking about one girl. When I read "there has been an increase", that makes me think we're talking about something measurable. An increase of one girl in one state does not scream "noticeable" to me.

The second reference is to a NARAL FAQ about restrictions on young women's abortions. There we find one part of one sentence that mentions women not seeking early, safe abortions. There is no study. There are no statistics. Just a statement with nothing concrete backing it up.

Neither of these references seem to back up the claim to which they are connected. In the absence of a better reference, I think they should both be removed and a "citation needed" mark should be added. I wanted to get comments to see if anyone objects, or knows of any better references for this point. Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To IronAngelAlice, I meant to undo your revision after signing in, just so you know who made the revision. I had the message above up on the discussion page for several days before I made the initial revision, and I got no response.

Your explanation of your revert does not address the problem I've raised. Try actually looking at the links that are raised in support of the assertion. Neither are even close to adequate. Not everyone will actually click through, which leaves people with the impression that the assertion that illegal abortions increase in states with parental involvement laws is supported by research. Find something that supports the assertion, because neither of those references do. Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeshuamyking7, I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was you making the changes. I thought it was a random IP. I'm sorry for the terse comment. Please note that this section is "arguments in opposition" to parental consent laws. The burden of proof, therefore, is not strictly a matter of statistics, but rather arguments made by organizations or knowledgeable individuals against parental consent laws. However, just as in the "arguments in support" section acknowledges that some arguments may not be supported, we should do the same in the "arguments in opposition" by including the claim that "some groups claim" (or something along those lines). --IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The language in the recent edit is much better, thank you. I would be much more comfortable with an acknowledgement, however, that the Michigan case isn't clearly linked with the topic at hand. If there is a news story that states the girl did this because of Michigan's consent law, that would make a much better citation.

In any event, we're still talking about one girl in one state. If this is a valid argument, surely there are many more cases. As someone who has studied this issue recently for my job, I can tell you that when the argument is made by groups like Planned Parenthood, it is made in the matter-of-fact way that appeared in the section before today's edits. "If you pass Law X, girls will get illegal abortions," or "In states with parental consent/notification laws, there is an increase in illegal abortions." This leads people to conclude that this is the case in "states," as in all the states, not just one girl in Michigan.

So to say "there is some evidence for this," we have to ask, what does "some" mean, and some evidence for what? In this case, "some" seems to mean one news piece from one state that doesn't even mention the parental consent law as a factor in the case. As for "evidence for what," apparently we're using this one case, which has not been demonstrated to be relevant, to support the idea that in states (emphasis on the plural) with these laws, illegal abortions increase. It still seems flimsy to me. Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Am trying to find more citations. Here are some:

http://archive.boulderweekly.com/011305/uncensored.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Better, but it's an op-ed. It would be better to find an original news piece that mentions this. Clearly if this writer in Colorado got the idea it was about the consent law, there must be some news piece from Michigan that mentions it. Without that, it almost seems like OR to cite the existing news piece in this context.

As I said above, even if such a news piece exists, it's still just one girl in one state. If the argument is valid there should be a noticeable increase in most or all states with parental involvement laws. In my own research, I found the opposite may in fact be the case. See page 148 of the following:

http://www.vermontcatholic.org/FamilyLife/ProtectingOurDaughters.pdf

So, while it is certainly the case that this is an argument used by those opposed to parental involvement laws, it is an open question whether that argument actually has any considerable basis in fact.

You may disagree, and feel free to do so, but I would say that without some additional citations regarding a noticeable increase in several states with parental involvement laws, this one case is not sufficient to say "there is some evidence." The claim is that " in states that have notification or consent laws, there has been an increase in unsafe, illegal, 'back alley' abortions." The claim is not "In Michigan, one girl's boyfriend gave her an illegal abortion because of Michigan's consent law." The actual claim is very broad, and as such, it cannot be supported solely by an isolated case in one state. Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AAhhh, but the burden of proof in this case is not what is true but what is argued. There are lots of missing statistics in facts in the preceding section, for example.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples of arguments employing "back alley abortions":

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4656504
• http://www.ms4c.org/videos.htm

Examples of "back alley abortions" in cases where minors did not want to notify a parent under parental consent laws:

• http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/030123.html
• http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju75018.000/hju75018_0f.htm
• http://archive.boulderweekly.com/011305/uncensored.html

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is most definitely what is true if you use the original language, which states the argument in opposition as if it is a fact, and it is still most definitely what is true because you've written "There is some evidence for this." Some evidence for what? Clearly not simply that this is an argument (because the citation doesn't even mention parental notification), but that the argument is true. The citation provided is not sufficient to call it evidence of the assertion.

As for Becky Bell, the only other example you have raised, see the following for another view on her death:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/BECKYBEL.TXT

--Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. EWTN is a beautiful website. I do, however, stand believe the citations I added are accurate for this particular and unique section.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand how anyone could claim that a single example in one state is sufficient to say there is evidence for an assertion about an increase in all states with these laws. We're talking about 35 states with parental involvement laws, and the only support for the assertion is one case in Michigan (where the source used doesn't even mention the parental consent law), and one highly questionable case in Indiana of a girl whose death may have nothing to do with illegal abortion. Where are the cases in the 33 other states, or 34 if the Indiana case is not legitimate?

Once again, the assertion is not "a girl in Michigan had an illegal abortion as a result of Michigan's parental consent law." The claim is that there is an increase in all states with parental involvement laws. That means at the bare minimum there should be 35 cases, one for each state. In reality, claiming there is an increase implies something more than one girl in each state, but that would be the absolute lowest number that would qualify as evidence of the assertion.

Perhaps rather than saying "there is some evidence for this," which is not really accurate, we could say "there is one documented case of this," with the caveat that we should continue to look for a news piece that mentions parental consent as a causal factor in the case.Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not making the claims. The sources we cite are making the claims. I've sourced everything that has been included.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alice, try to understand this. I've never said you are making the claim. I've said the claim and the evidence presented do not correspond.

Let's say there was an article on Wikipedia that said every skyscraper in America lights up with a red heart on Valentine's Day. The source provided for this is a picture of the Empire State Building with red lights in the shape of a heart on Valentine's Day. The claim in this case is not that one particular skyscraper celebrates Valentine's Day with red heart lights, but that all skyscrapers do. Therefore, the picture is not sufficient evidence of the claim, because the claim encompasses many skyscrapers while the picture only shows one.

Similarly, the claim here is that all states with parental involvement laws have seen increases in illegal abortions. The citation - the ONLY citation - is the story of one girl in Michigan. That is not sufficient evidence for a claim about ALL 35 STATES. How does this not make sense to you? Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from being condescending. Are you making the claim that the sources are unreliable? Because then we can have a conversation. It seems to me that ETWN is no more reliable or unreliable when it comes to this particular section than is a claim made by the very large organization Pro-Choice America.

If you are making the claim that what the sources say is incorrect, find a source that supports your point of view and put it in the proceeding section, "Arguments in favor." In other words, for this particular section there is no point in the two of us getting into an argument. We can't dispute that some women's health organizations are saying what they are saying. What you can do, however, is cite a source that makes a counter-claim.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be condescending, Alice. I simply don't understand what the miscommunication is, here. I'm not saying the source is unreliable or incorrect. I'm also not disputing that women's health organizations make the claim, because a Planned Parenthood spokesperson said it directly to me. I'm saying the source in use does not qualify as evidence of the assertion.

If I say X is happening in 35 states, and I cite a news report that X has happened in one state, how is that evidence of my claim? It is one example of my claim, but evidence would be a source or sources that show X is happening in all 35 states.

The assertion is that all 35 states with parental involvement laws have seen an increase in illegal abortions. The source says that one girl in Michigan had an illegal abortion (possibly because of Michigan's parental consent law, although once again, this is not mentioned in the source).

So, 35 states is the assertion. One state is the evidence. One does not equal 35. Therefore, one is not evidence for 35. Thirty-five is evidence for 35. Show me 35, then you can say "there is some evidence for this." Show me one, and you should say "there is one example of this." In point of fact, you ought to say "there is only one example of this," but I'm sure you would object to that, so "there is one example" will suffice. Yeshuamyking7 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research

User:86.121.11.61, I'm afraid you may not be familiar with how wikipedia works. You simply cannot add your own arguments to articles. It violations our no original research policy. You need to find reliable sources which you can cite and thereby attribute this views to. Unsourced content will most likely inevitably be deleted. Please feel free to acquaint yourself with some of our basic policies, and feel free to try again to improve this article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, http://www.clinicquotes.com/coerced%20murder.htm is not a WP:RS.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is a very reliable soruce. It describes the assaults which were commited by boyfriends against teenage girls who refused to have an abortion (it offers names, ages, locations etc). Personally I believe that you are against parental notification laws and you are trying to create a POV article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.11.61 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, "reliable" has a specific definition on wikipedia, where self-published websites are usually NOT reliable. Secondly, please don't try to speculate on my, or other editors motivation. We assume good faith here on wikipedia (see WP:AGF). I am just trying to make sure your contributions are up to our professional standards. And I know it can be hard to learn all of our rules when you first start editing., I don't want to discourage you at all. In fact, I am here to help out in any way I can. So relax, read up on some of our policies, and see if you can't bring your contributions up to standards in the future. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this source more reliable? [1]

Isn't this pro choice organization biasedd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.11.61 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the sentence states "Women's health organizations believe..." and then cites... (surprisingly) two women's health organizations. Choicematters.org is not an unqualified, neutral source of information (period), but it can be used as a source of information for what the organization itself believes. Furthermore, this is a professional, official website for a (marginally) notable organization. Clinicquotes.com seems entirely self-published. So yes, the source you asked about is more reliable, but couldn't be used unqualified (and isn't neutral). Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minors and abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905025157/http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/guide_ivg-2.pdf to http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/guide_ivg-2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minors and abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/fr1/Articolo.asp?c=274622
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.planned/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027230948/http://www.healthvote.org/index.php/site/prop_home/C36/ to http://www.healthvote.org/index.php/site/prop_home/C36/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Enjoined?

In the US section, there are a couple things that are not well explained:

"Parental notification law currently enjoined" and "Parental consent law currently enjoined". What do these things mean? It sounds like the legal definition of "enjoined" is basically "prohibited", but um.. certainly "notification law" is not prohibited. Is this trying to say that notification of parents is prohibited by issuing an injunction? Fresheneesz (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)