Talk:Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Is this O'Connor's last decision? If so, the article should note that fact. -- Pakaran 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor "fact"[edit]

I attached the {{fact}} tag to the following statement (which I have bolded the opinion portion):

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who ... was significantly responsible for developing the Court's recent abortion jurisprudence.

The claim cannot survive as fact without reliable data. I hope the proper citation can be made to avoid deleted the relevant portions.--Assawyer 20:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was one of the three plurality Justices in Casey, the citation for which is provided in the text. Casey rewrote the Roe v. Wade standard, by applying the "undue burden" standard that O'Connor had set forth in her concurring opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. What more do you need? Postdlf 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording is quite strong in glorifying O'Connor. She was one of three justices who co-authored the opinion in Casey. I don't believe this means she personally is "significantly responsible for developing the Court's recent abortion jurisprudence." Even if you take Webster into account. I think it would be proper to mention that she was part of the three that wrote the main opinion in Casey which altered Roe v. Wade and had altered recent abortion jurisprudence. --Assawyer 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She created the undue burden standard in her concurrence in Webster, which the Court adopted as its standard in Casey. That's significant responsibility. You can view that as glorifying, if you like the Court's abortion jurisprudence, or vilifying if you don't. The fact is the Court's standard was developed by her, and no justice since Blackmun has had a comparable degree of influence on this area of law. Which is why it's significant that she wrote this opinion, and that it was her last. Postdlf 21:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then, why not substitute the sentance with "O'Connor created the 'undue burden standard' in her concurrence in Webster, which was adopted by the Court as standard in Casey." That way people will understand what is so importatant about O'Connor's recent reproduction opinions. --Assawyer 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why her opinions are important to people who aren't already familiar with the undue burden standard. You'd have the article go off on a tangent to invoke and explain legal concepts not at issue just to support an obvious statement. We're talking about an introductory paragraph here, which is just trying to set context. What that calls for is a sentence that digests the details in a clear and simple statement. Can you come up with descriptive terms that are more neutral than "significantly responsible for developing"? I'm at a loss to see how that is inaccurate or POV, considering how she was in fact significantly responsible for developing the Court's abortion jurisprudence. Postdlf 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments, and as such I currently am unable to come up with better wording. I believe that the tripronged sentence through off my thought process. In the context you describe the statement makes sense. Obviously this is not the place to get into a long drawn out dissertation about O'Connor and her reproductive writings. I yield to you on this issue. --Assawyer 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I think I was being a bit too stubborn myself; I think the explanative footnote I just added should address both our concerns. Postdlf 00:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the footnote works perfectly. I don't know why I didn't think of it. I too was likely looking to pick an argument for arguments sake. P.S. You do good work, Wikipedia is luckly to have editors like you --Assawyer 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above solution gets the User:BD2412 Stamp of Approval. bd2412 T 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayotte_v._Planned_Parenthood_of_Northern_New_England&oldid=1195165275"