Talk:Heartbeat bill

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fetal heartbeat bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pamedsoc.org/HomePageNews/Womens-Right-to-Know.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that Alabama's legislative tracking website, http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/SESSBillStatusResult.ASPX?BILL=HB490&WIN_TYPE=BillResult , does not have functioning permalinks to bills. Year selection appears to be cookie-based, so there's no way to link to a particular bill in a particular year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.53.25 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fetal heartbeat bill. 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/20130824235326/http://health.state.ga.us/wrtk/ to http://www.health.state.ga.us/wrtk/

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) 06:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Name

Heartbeat bill or fetal heartbeat bill: Everywhere I see this written its in the simple common form "heartbeat bill," which is understood to mean "fetal heartbeat bill" which is the simple formal alternate. The two-word term is unambiguous with anything else, and so the two words are sufficient for naming purposes. The WP:Common name argument is guiding here, and the basis for why Common Name works is because common names are sufficient and efficient.-ApexUnderground (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll second that. Guarapiranga (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. ApexUnderground (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Fetal heartbeat bill → Heartbeat bill – Rename because the shorter two-word term is common, its sufficient for unambiguous naming, its easier to say, and its prominent in the literature.ApexUnderground (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Seconded o/ Guarapiranga (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alabama HB 314

I've added HB 314 to the summary table and text, though it's not exactly a heartbeat bill. Perhaps the page should be expanded to include all US state legislation restricting abortions. Or, perhaps another more encompassing page should be created. Guarapiranga (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Lede must clarify that many women don't know they are pregnant 6 weeks in

That's crucial context mentioned by every RS on this issue, and it makes clear to readers that six-week bans are de facto abortion bans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Expedited Move

I was bold and moved the page from Fetal heartbeat bill to Heartbeat bill because the discussion was a week old with no objection, and "Fetal heartbeat bill" is political language that should be avoided. At 6 weeks, when these bills are proposed, the conceptus is still a zygote, not a fetus, and the use of the word "fetus" is a deliberate political manipulation made by proponents of this legislation. Furthermore, I think we should avoid using the term "fetus" in favor of "conceptus" or "zygote" in this article in order to ensure medical accuracy. Miserlou (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. It depends on how RS describe the bills. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about this (would lean support, given the inaccuracy), but if you're going to close the move discussion, please do so formally rather than starting a separate section and edit warring with the bot. :) An out-of-process move without tying up loose ends leaves a bit of a mess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus was to use the shorter and COMMON name and its moved. -ApexUnderground (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Misnomer statement

The last sentence in the lede reads: Furthermore, critics have pointed out that the term "fetal heartbeat bill" is a misnomer, inasmuch as at that stage the conceptus is still only an embryo, and the "heart" is not yet connected to a circulatory system.

The content of the "misnomer" statement perplexes me, or at least the second part. (First, it's the question of fetus/embryo. The embryo develops into a fetus, and the legislature seems to cover both embryonic and fetal heart activity. I approve of the page move to just "Heartbeat bill", and of trying to use the most accurate terms.) But then the term "heartbeat" is questioned, on the grounds that it would be the integration into a fully developed circulatory system that makes a heartbeat a heartbeat? The interviewed journalist Jessica Glenz would also rather call "fetal heartbeat" "fetal cardiac activity", since the heart is not fully developed. This seems to be just an exchange of common words for more technical synonyms. When we write "heart" in citation marks we seem to indicate that the the embryonic tubular heart is not really a true heart. I am quite sure that the medical literature describes also an embryonic heart as a heart.

In addition to this, the Furthermore, critics have pointed out...-part does not seem entirely neutral. "Furthermore" sounds like its a part of the making of a case. "Critics" is too vague. "Pointed out", i think, has the connotation of agreement with the case being made.

The fetus/embryo distinction is of course valid. The rest of the sencentce, how should we make it better? --- St.nerol (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to comment further, I was originally only trying to paraphrase what was mentioned in source podcast about this issue. "Critics" is definitely way too ambiguous and could do with a more specific source. Miserlou (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The term "heartbeat" is misleading at best. While heart tissue does begin to be involved in circulating fluid through the embryo at six weeks of gestation, when the embryo is 2-4 mm in length, any reference to this action as a "heartbeat" must come with a heavy disclaimer. The heart doesn't develop into its definitive fetal structure until eight weeks of gestation, and until then it lacks the four-chambered structure required for the heartbeat as we experience it. The "heartbeat" at six weeks is a very primitive mechanism involving a single endocardial heart tube connected to a circuit that is not a cardiovascular system. This "heartbeat" exchanges fluid mostly among structures that aren't present in an adult human: blood islands, the fetal pole, and umbilical veins. What's observed through vaginal ultrasounds at six weeks is a structure called a fetal pole, which is essentially a yolk sac, not any action of the embryonic "heart." While the tissues that would later develop into a heart are identifiable at this stage through dissection, at six weeks the tissues are microscopic, and some tissues necessary for a fully developed heart are missing entirely. While the medical literature does refer to these tissues as a "heart" because of their development trajectory, this term has entered the popular discourse in a very misleading way.

Why would it violate NPOV to include the statements of critics here, given that the issue is extremely controversial? In my opinion, the article is too generous to the personal views of legislators. I think it's a wrong decision to include key matters of objective fact behind statements like "critics have pointed out," especially when those facts are central to understanding the intention behind these bills.

source on the early development of cardiac activity: https://web.archive.org/web/20070623132305/http://isc.temple.edu/marino/embryology/Heart98/heart_text.htm 168.235.187.210 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Wanted it to be known I restored the section since it was removed with out explanation. I however changed "heart" (in quotations) to tubular heart to avoid a violation of POV. Nice4What (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Abortion survivor"

Pinging User:Novel compound, User:MJL, User:Snooganssnoogans, and User:188.176.129.120...

The term "abortion survivor" is regards to Claire Culwell, who testified in front of Kentucky's Senate seems to me to be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. The original source cited was an anti-abortion site. The newer source simply states she survived an abortion from her mother, which isn't any better. I do not think we should use this term, as it's clearly anti-abortion.

I am not opposed to mentioning Culwell, but I fail to see how her testimony truly changed anything in Kentucky debate. Yes, her testimony did occur and that's a fact, but... so what? To what effect was her testimony of significance?

I suggest we reach a consensus here before readding the information to the article. Please refrain from edit warring. Nice4What (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Only include the testimony if RS highlight it as particularly important. Presumably there is all kinds of testimony, both pro- and anti-, going on before the passage of these kinds of bills. It's unclear to me why this testimony should be highlighted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: It'd probably be WP:UNDUE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that even if we remove the term "abortion survivor", including Culwell might be Undue Weight. It looks like she's picking up steam as a pro-life speaker because of her testimony in the state senate, but she appears to be only a minor figure in the history of the Kentucky bill, and I don't think her testimony makes her a big enough fish to warrant being mentioned. On the other hand, Culwell is a big enough fish in this story to have met governor Matt Bevin. I guess we should just wait and see if (the aftereffects of) her testimony becomes notable enough to warrant inclusion. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, meeting the Governor doesn't add much since I think it was within the context of this law being voted on anyways. I've also met my own state Governor in person and have been photographed with them multiple times, I don't think it adds to any more notability. Nice4What (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If meeting a governor is that common, then I guess you have a point. Ignore that second-to-last "On the other hand" sentence. Semi-related question from a non-American who is interested US politics: How common is it in the States for regular citizens to meet with their elected leaders (governor or otherwise)? - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a extremely common occurrence. As a person who has worked in this sort of field, I can tell you that the Governor of Connecticut (which is a smaller state) probably meets a hundred or so people every week. Of those, several are photographed and posted online, and one or two get covered by WP:RS. People here in the states expect a lot of facetime with their elected officials, so meeting with them is a lot more common than it would be in say like the Japan or South Africa. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: "Abortion survivor" is POV. Let's avoid an edit war and bring this to the talk page. I probably shouldn't have removed that sentence. I mostly felt compelled to on procedural grounds, but that could have been solved with a Dummy edit. I'd agree you are right. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Abortion survivor" is a factual, objective description of Claire Culwell's status. (As well as that of Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden. Will you be editing those articles to remove the objective description "abortion survivor"?) To selectively remove such a factual, objective description a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Shaking my head at how low society has fallen, when some people can actually entertain the notion that the opposite is true.

Regarding the testimony given in the Kentucky Senate, the cited news article says "perhaps the most compelling testimony came from two women: Claire Culwell, a Texas woman who survived an abortion attempt by her mother, and a Louisville entrepreneur who had an abortion." I am restoring the mention of abortion survivor Claire Culwell to the article.Novel compound (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Novel compound: Four editors are opposed to this and, as mentioned above, this may violate WP:UNDUE. So what if it was the "most compelling testimony"? Is that truly relevant or notable? I'd say no. I suggest self-reverting and coming back to the talkpage instead of lauding about "how low society had fallen", since you're clearly engaged in edit warring. Nice4What (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of the term, I see Novel compound has created Category:Abortion survivors and is adding pages to it. What should be done about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.129.120 (talk • contribs)

@188.176.129.120: Already noted and I've proposed a renaming of the category to "Category:People born after a failed abortion attempt" ."Survivors of failed abortion attempts", though I'm not entirely sure the term "survivor" is compliant with WP:NPOV. Nice4What (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice. I couldn't have come up with a better category name myself. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The term "abortion survivor"

In this article's "Kentucky" section, the user User:Novel compound keeps adding a sentence about Claire Culwell, who is described as an "abortion survivor". The sentence was added three times on 21 May 2019: at 17:11 UTC, at 19:55 UTC, and at 20:11 UTC. The first time, it is reverted by User:Nice4What, who in their edit summary rightly describes the term "abortion survivor" as "extremely POV". Novel compound gets rather miffed about this, as can be seen in the summary for their second edit: they pretend that Nice4What called Novel compound's edit factually incorrect, by claiming that their edit is "extremely factual" (whatever that means ... Are there other "degrees of factuality", such as "somewhat factual" and "medium factual"?) and then resorts to what is essentially a "no, you" by saying that "Nice4What's undoing of this edit is extremely POV".

Another person, User:Snooganssnoogans, then removes Novel compound's second addition, with his edit summary being "remove activist group blog". This is a sensible way to describe the "Kentucky Right to Life Association", which is the source Novel compound uses in their addition. Novel compound again gets miffed, again resorting to "no, you" and again pretending that the remover (this time Snooganssnoogans) called their edit factually incorrect (by asking if Snooganssnoogans is "suggesting the source I cited got it wrong, and abortion survivor Claire Culwell in fact did *not* testify in favor of Senate Bill 9"). Novel compound adds a different source (which I can't see because I'm in the EU, so I can't really object to what I can't see). This third addition still includes the term "abortion survivor", which was used in the first source from the Kentucky Right to Life Association, and which hasn't magically become less POV since Novel compound used it two hours earlier. It is as if Novel compound refuses to understand that "abortion survivor" is an inherently biased term which has no place in an encyclopedia.

I then come along, see that all this has happened, and become the third person to revert Novel compound's additions. User:MJL then re-reverts to Novel compound's third edit, describing by changes as an "Unexplained removal of sourced content". As I have been writing this, I notice that Nice4What has re-re-reverted and suggested we take it to the talk page. And as I write that sentence, I notice Nice4What has started their own section on the talk page. I'm posting this anyway just because it took so long to write (an because the points I make are presumably still valid). - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the write-up. Seems the consensus is against the inclusion of the testimony/term. Nice4What (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Nice4What. You declared that a consensus had been reached, only two minutes after 188.176.129.120 posted their write-up. That smacks of desperation.

The onus is on you to explain why it is anything other than objective and factual to describe a woman who survived an abortion as an abortion survivor. This appears to be a POV attempt to draw attention away another fact that's inconvenient to your POV: unlike Claire Culwell, Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden, most people do not survive attempts to abort them. Please stop deleting properly-sourced, factual information; i.e., please stand down from engaging in an edit war designed to advance your POV. Novel compound (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"That smacks of desperation" speaks for itself, using personal attacks hoping to unite a consensus. It was in regards to other editors who were pinged and all agreed above. "Abortion survivor" is clearly a POV term, and your creation of the category seems to indicate such. Please "stand down" as I'm not trying to advance a POV (you can check my other edits to this article).

The onus is on you to explain why it is anything other than objective and factual to describe a woman who survived an abortion as an abortion survivor. No, this is not the case. Build your case here and if it is factual and of no dispute, I'm certain it will be added. Nice4What (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

For a controversial topic that receives an awful lot of high-profile national (and even international) coverage, a mention in a local news source is WP:UNDUE to include, regardless of the terminology. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that when testimony given in the Kentucky Senate is mentioned, it is inappropriate to cite an article written by the news department of a Kentucky television station? Novel compound (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Novel compound: Maybe it's moreso that this seems to just be a local news story rather than one of notability. Nice4What (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that "has been mentioned once by a local news source" is notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia? Then everyone and their dog is notable. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that when testimony given in the Kentucky Senate is mentioned, it is inappropriate to cite an article written by the news department of a Kentucky television station? - There's no need to try to read into what I wrote. We include things according to what aspects of a subject have received coverage in reliable sources, roughly in proportion to that coverage. We have lots of aspects of the subject with coverage in national, etc. news sources and a little bit of coverage for this aspect. In other words, it is you that is deciding that this aspect of the subject is worth including, not the body of literature itself. If you can find more and better sources for why this is an important part of this subject, I wouldn't be opposed to some version of inclusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It is as if Novel compound refuses to understand that "abortion survivor" is an inherently biased term

When discussing a person who survived an abortion, "abortion survivor" is the most unbiased, objective term one can possibly use. What I don't understand is how anyone can think otherwise. (Actually, I do understand why this assertion is being made. Raising an objection to the unbiased phrase "abortion survivor" is an attempt to advance a particular POV.)

Perhaps even more importantly, Claire Culwell, Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden all self-identify as abortion survivors. I suspect you respect Caitlin Jenner's choice to self-identify as a woman (as do I), despite the fact that anatomically and chromosomally, Jenner is objectively not a woman. Is it not therefore even more important that we should respect the choice of these three women to self-identify as abortion survivors? Novel compound (talk)

@Novel compound: Equating gender identity to self-identifying as an "abortion survivor" is gross and wrong. Saying "Jenner is objectively not a woman" is also highly offensive and doesn't add to the conversation. Respecting gender identity doesn't mean having to respect every other identification a person takes on; that is just faulty parallel logic. Also, Wikipedia isn't all about respecting everyone's choices, which is why we use the neutral terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" and "pro-life".

However, I will try my best to explain why "abortion survivor" is biased. A survivor is usually seen as someone who survives something negative, and therefore the term "abortion survivor" implies that abortion is negative. That's why I proposed the term "person born after a failed abortion attempt" above as it is factual and shows no bias towards either side. I think it's a fair compromise. Nice4What (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Abortion survivor" is an inherently anti-abortion term. The word "survivor" has positive connotations, since saying that a person is "a survivor" implies that that person "persevered" and "beat the odds" fighting against someone or something that is evil or harmful. "To survive" implies "to be strong enough" (to not die). The word "survivor" implies that abortions are inherently wrong and evil and that people who "survived being aborted" are inherently good and right. And even if you won't see that, there is also the fact that even if everyone agreed that "survivor" is a neutral term for someone who didn't die, the term "abortion survivor" is still used consistently and exclusively by anti-abortion activists.

And what does gender identity have to do with this? Anyone can call themselves anything, but just because I come up with some term for myself ("King of Exampleland"), that doesn't mean I become that term (I am not "King of Exampleland", because there is no such place as Exampleland and there is such a thing as a King of Exampleland). The reason for why "Caitlin Jenner is a woman" is different from "Claire culwell is an abortion survivor" are different is because "woman" is not some moniker that only Caitlin Jenner and one side (but not the other) of a political debate has invented. "Woman" is an actual "category of human" (so-to-speak) that existed before gender identity became a political issue, and in most contexts the word "woman" has no positive or negative connotations. "Abortion survivor" on the other hand is a contentious term that only one side of the political debate uses, trying to paint abortions and women who have them as wrong and evil. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)