Talk:Heartbeat bill/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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:

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 IITalk 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:

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)

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)

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.

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)

"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 from 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)
"trying to paint abortions and women who have them as wrong and evil"
Your words, 188.176.129.120. Not mine. Novel compound (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I mean, supposing that someone has a late-term abortion, but the abortee lives. How are you going to describe this baby? "Abortion survivor" seems pretty succinct and accurate. However, it is potentially confusing, since it could refer to someone who had an abortion (and survived it). It confused me. It is true that that'd be pretty misleading description, since abortions performed according to medical practice aren't dangerous; it's kind of like being a "circumcision survivor" or "abuse survivor" or whatever: inherently polemical,

But since polemics surrounds this issue, I assumed that that was probably how the term "abortion survivor" was being used, at first. Other readers would too, I suppose.

So, since it's a possibly confusing term, I'm not super high on using it. There isn't really another succinct and accurate term I don't think, so then you'd have fall back on being more wordy: replace "Anne Baxter, an abortion survivor, said..." with "Anne Baxter, who was born during an unsuccessful abortion procedure, said..." or something like that. Sometimes you have to use more words to be sufficiently clear. Herostratus (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what confused me when I encountered this at AN3 — I thought it was about a female surviving an abortion she had. El_C 03:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I realize that may not make a lot of sense, in context, but that is the immediate impression I got from seeing it for the first time. El_C 03:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@El C: same case for me. It's a really ambiguous term. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

When they talk about surviving abortion what do they mean, the fetus was aborted but lived?Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a term used by anti-abortionists to speak of a rare situation in which during a late-term abortion, the abortion attempt fails and a baby is born. This doesn't seem to happen anymore with the "dilation and evacuation" procedure. Nice4What (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I must say I am not sure the abortion attempt fails, its aim to to terminate the pregnancy, in this is still succeed. But by the same token the child survived the abortion. So yes I think it would be fair to use the term abortion survivor, loaded though it is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@The synthesized: You've readded the term "abortion survivor" to several articles and even reverted recent edits to the page, some of which had nothing to do with this dispute. I suggest talking it out here. Your explanation that Nice4What has been pushing an agenda in multiple articles, removing the term "abortion survivor" despite objections and collaborating with other editors to maintain his preferred POV shows you have not thoroughly read this talk page discussion. There is no "agenda" being pushed by me in collaboration with other editors. The main point of discussion is to see if the term is permissible under WP:NPOV, to which I'd like to point out that 1.) the term isn't agreed by both sides of the debate, and 2.) it is predominately used by anti-abortionists. Being neutral doesn't equate to being anti-anti-abortion, so it is not pushing a certain POV. Nice4What (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Alabama's Human Life Protection Act

It is not clear at Human Life Protection Act whether Alabama would permit abortions until six weeks. If that is not the case, that act has little to do with "fetal heartbeat bills" and should be removed from the list at this article. I opened a thread also at Talk:Human Life Protection Act. Thanks! --Checco (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Checco, you are correct that the Human Life Protection Act is different from a heartbeat law. It bans abortion at any stage of gestation. If this article mentions the law at all, it should note the distinction. SunCrow (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
In the map I've added, it is already marked on the state "Abortion outlawed" to differentiate. Maybe we should add a note on the table summarizing the bills? Nice4What (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I added to the lead, "and a bill in Alabama which does not allow abortion at any stage of pregnancy or for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest." since this includes the heartbeat bill and even beyond. Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of lede

The lede has some issues. First, it is not well-written. Second, some of it is unsourced and lacks any foundation in the body of the article. Third, some of it is original research (for instance, the sentence that reads, "This perforce makes fetal heartbeat bills de facto blanket bans on abortion in the majority of cases".) Fourth, it lacks a concise summary laying out which states have passed heartbeat bills. Fifth, some of the material would be more appropriately placed in the body of the article. I propose that the lede be revised to read as follows:

A "heartbeat bill" (or "heartbeat law") is a form of abortion restriction legislation in the United States that makes abortions illegal as soon as an embryonic or fetal heartbeat can be detected.
In 2013, North Dakota became the first state to pass a heartbeat law. That law was struck down as unconstitutional under the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Several states proposed heartbeat bills in 2018 and 2019; as of May 2019, such bills had become law in Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, and Ohio.[1] According to CNN, heartbeat bills "may be unenforceable [under Roe]. But abortion opponents are hoping that [legal challenges] will serve as a vehicle for the Supreme Court to eventually overturn the Roe ruling."[2]
An embryonic or fetal heartbeat can be detected at six to seven weeks' gestation.[nb 1] When a Doppler fetal monitor is used, the heartbeat may not be detected until 12 weeks' gestation.[4] Many women who are pregnant do not know that they are pregnant at six weeks' gestation,[5][6] and most women who have abortions have them after that point in their pregnancies.[7]

I would propose that the following paragraph be moved elsewhere in the article:

Some critics have challenged the accuracy of calling the activity of the embryonic tubular heart a "fetal heartbeat", as at that stage the conceptus is still only an embryo and the tubular heart is not yet connected to a circulatory system. Some critics suggest "[embryonic or] fetal cardiac activity" as more scientific.[8] In the medical literature these terms are used interchangeably,[9][10][11] with "embryonic" being used up to around eight weeks after fertilization, and "fetal" from the beginning of the ninth week.[12]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/abortion-laws-states.html
  2. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/states-abortion-laws/index.html

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


I think that it would be better to move slowly rather than a drastic complete lead rewrite. I've worked with many new articles and in my experience the lead does tend to get bloated till eventually portions are broken away into sections such as History, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. I will only edit the second paragraph for now. SunCrow (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I have removed my proposed sentence about the Alabama law, which is not a heartbeat bill. SunCrow (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@SunCrow: I see you've begun editing the lede without a consensus. Please be wary of doing this because it can be a cause of dispute. I restored the sentence about Alabama with an explanation of the law, but it seems the rest of your edits are pretty constructive. Nice4What (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice4What, there was no consensus because only one other editor responded. I waited three days, took into account the other editor's input, and made some edits. I am open to additional input. SunCrow (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@SunCrow: Nevermind, you did the right thing by incorporating the other proposals. I have no objections, sorry for bringing it up. Nice4What (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
No problem, Nice4What. I freely admit to not being the most patient of editors. I actually ended up editing the third paragraph, too, so I went a bit beyond what I said I would do. It looks like somebody else moved or removed the "some critics" paragraph. SunCrow (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy of terms

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)
I restored the well sourced sentence about embryonic "heartbeat" and "heart/cardiac activity" being used interchangeably in medical academic publications. The preceding sentence currently claims that the use of "heartbeat" is incorrect. I do not think Wikipedia should act judge as to what the correct use is. --St.nerol (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I did read the interesting text about cardiovascular development that @168.235.187.210: provided. (https://web.archive.org/web/20070623132305/http://isc.temple.edu/marino/embryology/Heart98/heart_text.htm) The source states that "in the fourth week of gestation [...] The heart now begins to beat. As the heart begins to beat three sets of blood islands coalesce to form three vascular circuits. [An] embryonic circuit forms [... breaking] up into capillary networds that supply blood to the developing embryonic tissues."
Thus, the statement from the podcast with Jessica Glenza about the ""heart" not being connected to a circulatory system" seems to be false. --St.nerol (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I finally did some rewriting to include the source above on early cardiovascular development. Also the ob-gyn Jennifer Keats states both that there is a primitive cardiovascular system and that there is no such system of any kind... in the same interview! This is a delicate confusion to handle! St.nerol (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

some material removed...

I have removed some material regarding medical arguments about whether or not the heart is connected to a circulatory system or whether or not the heartbeats are "real heartbeats", etc. This is not the place to argue these points and we are not experts in the field. We should be saying that there is controversy but not go into any depth on it. I removed the embryonic heart illustration as well -- how does it add to the article? Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I noted and considered your changes. Perhaps it's better. Although, when Time magazine reported on the issue and put "heartbeat" in quotation marks, it was this article that helped me understand the controversy.
The original discussion is above, under Talk:Heartbeat bill#Accuracy of terms. Should we move this up there? --St.nerol (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
It is hard at times to need to delete medical information that may actually be helpful to a reader but does not meet our Wikipedia:MEDRS standards. Gandydancer (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It's worth noting that we've discussed this before (as seen above) and to me it seems like a somewhat important piece of information. It's known to be part of the controversy, so why omit it if all it does is help better explain to readers? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Did you read Wikipedia:MEDRS? Gandydancer (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Embryo/fetus/conceptus

Since some May 19 edits, this article makes general use of the term "conceptus". According to the Wp article, "conceptus" means "the embryo and its adnexa (appendages or adjunct parts)". It seems to me that the word "embryo" is more natural and would do just as well, with some possible variation depending on context. Is there any objections to this? --St.nerol (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Conceptus is a helpful term since it covers both the embryonic and fetal stages. Gandydancer (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure about this? According to Wikipedia, citing Dorland's, it covers only the embryonic stage: "the embryo and its adnexa"? And it seems to be quite a rare term, compared to "embryo" or "fetus". St.nerol (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
WP is not a reliable source. The term does cover both stages. Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Although WP is citing Dorland's Medical Dictionary, as far as I know you might be right that "conceptus" should cover both stages, and thus is a useful term the article. As it is now, "conceptus" is used 13 times in the article, and "embryo" is not used at all. How about using "embryo" where it is clear from the context that the subject is an embryo; i.e. "at six weeks, the embryo"? --St.nerol (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Cardiovascular system

Under accuracy of terms, there is a quote by an ob-gyn saying that there is not "any kind of cardiovascular system" at six weeks. In the interview, this statement contradicts her preceding statement that "At six weeks, [...] there is a very immature cardiovascular system". This earlier statement seems to be the correct one: Embryologist Thomas A. Marino's text on cardiovascular development states that an embryonic blood circuit forms "as the heart begins to beat", in the fourth week of gestation.[1] (The last sentence has been in the section at an earlier point.)

1) Should the section include any opinion of the ob-gyn at all?

2) If so, how can we make the section non-misleading about embryonic development?

References

  1. ^ Marino, Thomas A. "Development of the Cardiovascular system". Archived from the original on 2007-06-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

-- St.nerol (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

We could have the full quote, but it is incoherent, and probably adds nothing to the article. If no one objects, I'm going ahead to remove the quote by Jennifer Keats. --St.nerol (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@St.nerol: I object to the removal of the quote. From the full quote:

From there, the issue is what that “heartbeat” actually is. “At six weeks, the embryo is forming what will eventually develop into mature systems. There’s an immature neurological system, and there’s a very immature cardiovascular system,” says Jennifer Kerns, an ob-gyn at UC San Francisco and director of research in obstetrics and gynecology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. The rhythm specified in the six-week abortion bans, she says, “is a group of cells with electrical activity. That’s what the heartbeat is at that stage of gestation … We are in no way talking about any kind of cardiovascular system.”

We can add the first quote to the article if that's what you want, but I see no reason in omitting the ob-gyn's opinion. It definitely reflects why there's opposition to the term "fetal heartbeat", something readers may visit the article looking for. I believe when she says "We are in no way talking about any kind of cardiovascular system", she's talking about what we typically expect to be a cardiovascular system, as opposed to "a very immature cardiovascular system"; these sentences may seem to contradict each other, but this isn't necessarily the case. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 20:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
That there is in no way .. any kind of cardiovascular system, is an expression with an emphasis on the absolute. Not only should there be no system, there should be no system of any kind! (Not even a small one, one supposes.) Adding "there’s a very immature cardiovascular system" at least makes it clear that she is exaggerating. --St.nerol (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@St.nerol: I would agree that there was exaggeration on her part. Maybe we should find a way to include her entire quote then? My proposal:

Jennifer Keats, an ob-gyn at University of California, San Francisco, stated that the fetus' cardiovascular system at six weeks is "very immature". Keats described the cardiac activity as "a group of cells with electrical activity. That’s what the heartbeat is at that stage of gestation … We are in no way talking about any kind of cardiovascular system."

Changes are highlighted. Let me know what you think and please ping me. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that your wording would be excellent. Gandydancer (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nice4What: I accept the proposal. Thank you for the dialogue. --St.nerol (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@St.nerol and Gandydancer: I'm going to go ahead and add the revised phrasing to the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This page could use several adjustments

Currently this page could use several adjustments and improvements.

Firstly, in the opening section of the page there's no real reason for the Alabama law to be included as it wasn't a law about outlawing abortion upon a fetal heartbeat. It simply being an abortion ban and "similar" doesn't change that. Alabama amended its Constitution in 2018 to give unborn children a right to life (see: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Amendment_2,_State_Abortion_Policy_Amendment_(2018) ), and that was the main impetus behind the law being passed in 2019. Thus, the Alabama law should be removed from this particular article.

Secondly, the "States" section should be moved more toward the top of the page, with the "Controversy" and "Constitutionality" sections moved below it, which is the typical way articles like this are laid out.

The claim in the controversy section that "no one is exactly sure when the earliest point is at which a conceptus's heartbeat can be detected" is unsourced. This should be changed to "There exists some controversy surrounding fetal heartbeat laws because the time period where a fetal heartbeat can be detected often depends on the type of equipment used." Also in this section, including quotes from partisan Democrat lawmakers (Norine Kasperik and Mary Throne) isn't a good idea, but if the quotes are kept the pro-law congresspeople should also have their side of the argument included.

The "Constitutionality section should be reworded. Again, if one side of the constitutional argument is quoted, the other side should have their position quoted as well. This idea further applies to the "Accuracy of terms section. This page has a common trend of saying "pro-fetal heartbeat law proponents claim X", without actually quoting any of the proponents, and then giving a counter-claim quote from a person on the anti-fetal heartbeat law side. Edit5001 (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Why talk about it when you can go ahead and make those changes yourself, Edit5001? WP:Be bold. Guarapiranga (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Avatar317 The problem with the Guttmacher numbers are that they give no breakdown as to the exact number of abortions performed at 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks, 6 weeks, etc. They just group all abortions 8 weeks and prior into the same category. Thus it's difficult to justify saying "Most" or "the majority" of abortions happen after six weeks based on that source, since the number of abortions in the important 6-8 week period aren't specified. I understand your point though so will leave it if you'd like.

The other edits are strong and were time consuming to research, so if you have an issue with other parts, please point them out individually. Edit5001 (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I looked at your changes and I feel that you have improved the article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Same. Guarapiranga (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Edit5001: THANK YOU for doing your edits singly; I feel it is much easier to have discussions about edits when they are done individually, rather than en masse. That way we can let good edits stand and talk about disputed ones and know WHICH edit we are talking about.---Avatar317(talk) 20:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The quote from the Georgia law I added addressed the direct Constitutional argument that's relevant to the Constitutionality section. The quote wasn't just picked out from the law at random. By relying on essentially news outlets to report on certain facts and ignoring the source material we're leaving out strong, relevant information. Some Wikipedia articles quote directly from court documents and other government forms, so I think we should allow the statements in the law to be quoted here. Edit5001 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
It is OPINION offered by ONE STATE's lawmakers, not an expert's INDEPENDENT opinion on Constitutionality issues, so it shouldn't be in the article. And YOU don't get to cherry-pick WHICH opinions of lawmakers are important enough to mention and which aren't; that's why we use independent sources.---Avatar317(talk) 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, but if you look in the Constitutionality section as it stands it already quotes one state's non-independent, non-expert governor (Governor Mike Beebe) giving their opinion on the constitutionality of the laws. You're holding what I added to a different standard than what's already in the article. Edit5001 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
INDEPENDENT refers to Independent Sources, WP:IS, not my opinion of whether a person's point of view is independent to the issue at hand.---Avatar317(talk) 05:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Avatar317: Considering these sources are simply being used to cite statements the legislators passing the laws are making, shouldn't that be fine? If someone wants to know the answer to the question "What is the angle of the lawmakers passing the laws?" this information is very helpful. I often see documents like the one I cited being used on Wikipedia to show what an official/officials said. Edit5001 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ohio "Heartbeat Bill"

I do not see the state legislation as independently notable from the main topic. It seems clearly within the realm of the parent article. Everything that can be said about the Ohio heartbeat bill can be said at Heartbeat bill per WP:MERGEREASON#Context. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with merge. AHampton (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with merge. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I am just becoming familiar with this topic, but for now it does seem a reasonable improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with merge Miserlou (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Tennessee

Tennessee's state legislature passed a bill recently, according to this article, which Bill Lee has supported; however, the article does not mention which bill it is. On the Tennessee State Legislature website, it does not say that SB 1236 has been passed. --Numberguy6 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

An embryo, not a fetus

Would it be proper to note in the article that it is not correct to term the first heartbeat as occurring in a fetus when actually at that stage of development it is still referred to as an embryo? The embryo is the size of a pea and it really does not have a heart connected to a circulatory system but rather a small set of cells that beat...because they are cardiac cells and that's what they do. (Not that I'm suggesting we need to say all of that--but something...) Gandydancer (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is already covered by the fourth paragraph in the lead. Take a look:

Some critics have challenged the accuracy of calling the activity of the embryonic tubular heart a "fetal heartbeat", as at that stage the conceptus is still only an embryo and the tubular heart is not yet connected to a circulatory system. Some critics suggest "[embryonic or] fetal cardiac activity" as more scientific.[1] In the medical literature these terms are used interchangeably,[2][3][4] with "embryonic" being used up to around eight weeks after fertilization, and "fetal" from the beginning of the ninth week.[5]

References

  1. ^ "The One-Woman Lobby Machine Behind the Heartbeat Bills".
  2. ^ Chiou KK, Rocks JW, Chen CY, Cho S, Merkus KE, Rajaratnam A, Robison P, Tewari M, Vogel K, Majkut SF, Prosser BL, Discher DE, Liu AJ (2016). "Mechanical signaling coordinates the embryonic heartbeat". PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.1520428113. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
  3. ^ Doubilet PM, Benson CB (1 June 1995). "Embryonic heart rate in the early first trimester: what rate is normal?". Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 14 (6). doi:10.7863/jum.1995.14.6.431. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
  4. ^ Schats R, Jansen CA, Wladimiroff JW (Nov 1990). "Embryonic heart activity: appearance and development in early human pregnancy". Br J Obstet Gynaecol. PMID 2252878. Retrieved 2019-05-21.
  5. ^ Klossner, N. Jayne, Introductory Maternity Nursing (2005): "The fetal stage is from the beginning of the 9th week after fertilization and continues until birth"
What do you think? Nice4What (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The terms are not used interchangeably. I corrected that. I also removed the "some critics suggest..." sentence. That is not an arguable statement that "some critics" need to argue for its accuracy. It is a medical fact. Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears the content above was mostly deleted by October 2021. Jim Grisham (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 June 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J9gonzal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead map

The lead map is not correct. There are law suits and a judge is holding the bills until they are settled in both Tennessee and South Carolina. Gandydancer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.88.196 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The map at the beginning of the article incorrectly asserts that Oklahoma's heartbeat law is currently in effect. Also, the artlicle should be updated to reflect the recent passage of a heartbeat law in Idaho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.52.93.58 (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, the artlicle should be updated to reflect the recent passage of a heartbeat law in Idaho.
 Done — Guarapiranga ☎ 13:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2022

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: No consensus - moving back to Heartbeat bill. This discussion has been around for several weeks now, and there doesn't seem to be any sign of a consensus, other than that the present title of "Six-week abortion ban" does not seem to command much support. The general guideline in such cases is to revert to the most recent stable title, which is Heartbeat bill It is noted that the article deals specifically with bans based on cardiac activity, thus incorporating that in the title seems to have some merit. And two respondents do favour the previous title as well, with some evidence presented that it may be the common name. As this is a no consensus close, editors are welcome to try again at some point, with evidence, to see if a different title may enjoy a firmer consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Six-week abortion ban → Early pregnancy abortion bans – Per the reasons given in the above discussion. This has currency in reliable sources, is more accurate than the current title, and is not deprecated by style guides (as "heartbeat bill" is). QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Support per my posts above as well as others.---Avatar317(talk) 05:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Move back to heartbeat bill - The recent changes to this article are misleading and highly biased. Medical textbooks and journals (removed on May 6, 2022) use the term "heartbeat" to refer to the embryo's beating heart. Some more examples:
  • "Now, a team funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) at the University of Oxford has demonstrated earlier beating of the heart in mouse embryos which, if extrapolated to the human heart, suggests beating as early as 16 days after conception." - University of Oxford
  • "The electrical configuration of the embryonic heart consisting of alternating slowly and rapidly contracting segments, as described below, allows the early chamber-forming heart to produce coordinated atrial and ventricular contractions effectively propelling blood forward." - Moss & Adams’ Heart Disease in Infants, Children, and Adolescents, Including the Fetus and Young Adult
  • "The heart and major blood vessels begin to develop earlier—by about day 16. The heart begins to pump fluid through blood vessels by day 20, and the first red blood cells appear the next day." - Merck Manual
    • Note that the Ms. Magazine post cited in the present version of this article originally linked to this textbook, but then removed it without explanation after someone pointed out on Twitter that it refutes their entire tirade [1].
  • "The heart begins to beat at 22 to 23 days. Blood flow begins during the fourth week, and heartbeats can be visualized by Doppler ultrasonography." - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, by Keith Moore, TVN Persaud, and Mark Torchia (10e, 2013)

Actual medical sources are better than media articles for medical claims (see WP:MEDPOP), and it's rather obvious to anyone who is paying attention that the news media have an axe to grind. Every one of the articles denying that embryos have hearts has been refuted [2]. They fail to define "heartbeat", they use biased sources (without identifying their bias), they use vague euphemisms, and they link to one another (it's a circle jerk rather than independent sources).

But if we are going to use non-medical sources, here are a couple that tell the rest of the story:

  • [3]
  • [4]
    • This one is actually already linked in the article, but it clearly indicates that "In the past four months, five states (Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia and Louisiana) have passed laws that ban abortion once a heartbeat becomes detectable during a pregnancy, which is generally possible by the sixth week of gestation, or the fourth week after conception." The Wikipedia article needs to be updated to reflect this.

As for the ACOG, they strongly support abortion on demand and have a history of misleading the public about it [5][6]. They're far from an objective source on this topic. But when they're not lobbying for abortion, they too use the term "heartbeat" [7].

We can include a section about the ongoing gaslighting campaign from the heartbeat bills' many opponents (which the news media play a key part in). The "it's not really a heartbeat" meme seemed to originate from an article on Jen Gunter's blog in December 2016, which is quite interesting, but it shouldn't be stated as fact in the article. A pretty good summary is found here. It is, however, quite telling that they go to such lengths to deny the reality of the embryonic heartbeat. Obviously, they know full well that this fact is very relevant to the way most Americans view abortion.

"Six week ban" is clearly inaccurate (the bills do not specify a gestational limit, but a clinical sign), and "early pregnancy abortion ban" is imprecise (what's "early"? 0 weeks, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, what?) and not widely used. 207.195.86.31 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your own Original Research WP:OR and anti-abortion sources you link to are not acceptable as sources in Wikipedia. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I was not proposing that anti-abortion sources be cited in the article (though they’re no worse than Ms. Magazine), they’re only there to demonstrate how wrong the sources in the article are. Citing high-quality textbooks to support a claim (heartbeat begins at 22 days; detectable at 6 weeks) isn’t original research, it is in fact the preferred way to source biomedical statements per WP:MEDBOOK. Practice bulletins from professional associations like ACOG, which use the term « heartbeat », are also good sources. Media articles are often incorrect, and the ones cited in the article are great examples of why they should not be used to source medical information. 72.143.80.154 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This isn't an article about anything medical; it is an article about laws which ban things, and therefore we use sources which discuss those laws, anything else is IRRELEVANT Original Research WP:OR. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Wrong. WP:MEDRS applies to all biomedical information, regardless of whether or not the subject of the article is "anything medical". The bombing of Hiroshima is not a medical topic, but information about the health effects on the victims would still require a medical source. Conversely, thalidomide is a medical topic but non-medical information (history and regulation of the drug, lawsuits, etc) would not be subject to WP:MEDRS. 142.165.29.134 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to "Abortion bans after embryonic cardiac activity" or something similar. "Early pregnancy abortion bans" is too vague, and "Six-week abortion ban" is incorrect because the bills do not specify a gestational period, they specify a clinical sign and require that a doctor try to detect it. I agree that "fetal heartbeat" may not be the best description of this sign, but in this case let's use whatever term accurately describes it. Heitordp (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Move back to heartbeat bill, as 207.195.86.31 advocated above. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    And as Szmenderowiecki pointed out above, heartbeat bill is the expression most commonly used by WP:RS. As a proxy, an incognito Google News Search yields:
      — Guarapiranga ☎ 09:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: pinging @Sectionworker: and @Szmenderowiecki:, who were involved in the previous discussion on this but have not commented here. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I support a name change to Early pregnancy abortion bans. I support the name change because it goes beyond the fetal heartbeat and is more accurate. These new proposals and laws violate Roe v Wade constitutional law that ruled that the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is viable outside of a woman's body is a woman's choice, not a politician's decision. If some states are allowed to ignore the Constitution and make up their own laws, I wonder where that will lead us...? Sectionworker (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC). Sectionworker (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I fail to see the relevance of one's opinion on those proposals to the article name change, Sectionworker. Are you saying you support the name change bc you oppose the bills? That's one hell of a way of excusing onself from upholding WP:NPOV. — Guarapiranga ☎ 13:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, please excuse my mistakes. This is not exactly the best set up and run AfC I've ever read either. Sectionworker (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Sectionworker: This article is only about a specific type of abortion ban based on the detection of embryonic cardiac activity. It does not include other recent attempts to ban abortion before viability, such as a ban by Mississippi after 15 weeks of gestation or by Oklahoma since fertilization. In addition, this article only deals with abortion bans in the United States, so it shouldn't be named simply "Early pregnancy abortion bans", which also exist in many countries if 10-12 weeks is considered "early". But the title doesn't need to mention the United States if it refers to heartbeat or cardiac activity because bans of this type only exist there. Heitordp (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
We could easily include info on the Mississippi and Oklahoma bans; this way this article could be allowed to encompass more laws, and it could be named: "Early pregnancy abortion bans (United States)" to identify that aspect. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
How about starting a new article with that name (and not just for the US)? Then it could either refer to this article as a specific case, or be merged into it. — Guarapiranga ☎ 21:21, 5 June 2022 (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.

What is the actual time limit with these bills?

The laws have been called "six-week abortion ban" because "fetal heartbeat" is inaccurate. But does that mean that the limit is actually at 6 weeks GA, or just that on average the electrical activity that triggers the ban is detectable at around 6 weeks? That is, what is the actual wording of the laws, or do they vary from state to state? — kwami (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know the answer and apparently a lot of clinics that were doing abortions in states with the new laws don't either but they quit doing abortions for fear that they would face legal proceedings and their medical workers would lose their licenses. It is helpful to understand just what the very early so called early "heartbeat" really is. When our first cells are forming some of them form cardiac cells and some of them have electrical functions. The interesting thing about them is that not only do they flutter with beats, they influence the ones around themselves to flutter in unison. But for real heartbeats the heart must be more fully formed. See our cardiac pacemaker article. BTW, if you read that article note how if the pacemaker is damaged, a heart attack for example, pacemekers in different cardiac areas may attempt to take over the job. (Our bodies are so smart--too bad that our brains don't always do as well...) Sectionworker (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I ask because the 'fetal pain' bills are [i believe] set at an absolute 20 weeks GA. of course, the doctor can't measure that, the way they could here. so it could be set at an absolute 6 weeks, with an argument similar to the pain bills, or it could be set to when the flutter can actually be detected, which means the doctor would need to check to see if they could detect the flutter and, if not, could proceed with the abortion. — kwami (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I checked the Ohio law.[8] I have yet to find where abortions are actually banned at this point -- all I see is a requirement of informed consent. But that aside, under Ohio law a zygote is a "fetus", the law specifies that the relevant factor is that a "fetal heartbeat" be "detectable", rather than specifying a particular time-frame, and includes the definition:
"Fetal heartbeat" means cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.
The "or" would seem to be key there, because otherwise you can't get to six weeks, but later they write,
Cardiac activity begins at a biologically identifiable moment in time, normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac.
The only time the word "week" is used that's directly relevant here is when they write,
When a heartbeat is visualized at seven weeks or less, ninety-one and one-half per cent will survive the first trimester and ninety-five per cent of those will deliver live- born infants.
So it's not a six-week ban!
The law is clearly contradictory with reality, but a judge would likely rule that the intent of the law is clear even if the facts are muddled. — kwami (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on changes in the lead

I recently made some changes to the lead that an editor has questioned. I deleted these words (In italics) from the opening para: "These bans make abortion illegal as early as six weeks gestational age (two or three weeks into a pregnancy), which is when proponents claim that a "fetal heartbeat" can be detected, though at this point there is no fetus, no heart and no heartbeat.". The refs that were used were not medical but were instead The Guardian and Slate. Also, I believe that this opening seems a little designed to catch the eye and more fitting for a news outlet rather than an encyclopedia. I instead moved the last para up which uses a medical approach and has medical refs. Sectionworker (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

think that in an article with a long lead like this one, it's good writing for the first para to be a short summary of the lead. and, if i recall correctly, that follows the MOS. IMO, the fact that the 'fetal heart beat' isn't any of those [and in fact that the wording is intentionally misleading] is a primary point of the article and so should be presented up front. but i think it's overkill to have all the medical details up front. that's a bit overwhelming and I suspect makes the article less accessible. IMO, better to use just the medical refs while leaving the details down where they were. [we don't actually need refs in the lead, but in a case like this it's perhaps a good idea.] — kwami (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't remember running across an article that felt that the lead needed to be summarized in the first paragraph. Can you point me to the WP guideline that suggests this? Sectionworker (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I checked and didn't see anything at MOS, so I started a thread asking if this was something we should recommend, or if an article that needs an intro para to the lead would be better off with a shorter lead.
I suspect that the length of the lead here is butting up against TLDR. — kwami (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I've never heard of a policy for a lead to the lead, but I could be wrong.
For your second comment: please see WP:LEADLENGTH. This article currently has readable prose of 37,000 characters (including the table). So 2-3 paragraphs is the recommended length, and we currently are at 2.25 paragraphs (small last paragraph), so the length seems appropriate to me. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The MOS doesn't seem to address this either way. It specifically doesn't say that we're "not allowed" to repeat info, which was the reason for merging the last paragraph into the first. But there have been a couple relevant opinions on the MOS talk page:
It will depend on the article, but I think in the case of large articles about complex subjects, a one paragraph summary of the lead would be appropriate.
and
from the perspective of mobile readers, this practice may by more beneficial than is immediately obvious. Infoboxes are not collapsed on mobile, and are presented between the first paragraph of the lead and the remainder. On my device, our article on the Tao Te Ching inserts six full scrolls of infobox information immediately following the opening paragraph (including the lead image; five and a half screens of infobox excluding the image). The lead is not particularly long, so the idea of the opening paragraph serving as a very high level summary benefits the readability of a larger set of articles on mobile.
— kwami (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I posted a note at the MOS talk page. Sectionworker (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WGST0825 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bellazafa.

— Assignment last updated by Marimend (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The Table MUST be updated

The Table in State laws section is outdated - the Heartbeat laws are NOT blocked anymore. Please update. 67.170.255.241 (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In the United States, injunctions are not lifted automatically upon Supreme Court's decision; rather, they are issued one by one, though these injunctions risk to be overturned. Besides, since the article is not protected, you can edit it directly as an IP. So even though the underlying reasoning for the injunctions no longer holds, the injunctions are in force until judges overturn them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
What about the case in Oklahoma for example. Senate Bill 1503 was signed by Governor Kevin Stitt on the third of May 2022. Based off of what I read from the Oklahoma State Legislation [website http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB%201503] it appears that the bill prohibits abortions as soon as there is cardiac activity. Section 9 of this bill also allows for anyone to bring up a civil case against anyone who gets an abortion and/or administers it. I'd like to add that to the Oklahoma section under Lawsuits.

WGST0825 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the recent page change

I am aware that moving the page may be contentious, but I believe that calling these bans "heartbeat bills", acts, or whatnot is a violation of NPOV. In the same way that Wikipedia refers to abortion-rights movements (instead of pro-choice) and anti-abortion movements (instead of pro-life) in Wikivoice.

I do not have access to many style guides, but all the ones I could find online seem to be against use of the term "heartbeat":

--QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The (in)accuracy of these terms is also elaborated upon in the "Accuracy of terms" section. Per WP:MEDRS, and the style guides listed above, Wikipedia should not be using "fetal heartbeat" or similar terms in its own voice, in my opinion. -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
This move should be discussed. The term "heartbeat bill" is used to describe abortion bans at mildly different stages in pregnancy, it is not ALWAYS exactly 6 weeks. It is a "large tent" phrase which is used to describe many of these abortion bans. I agree that the term is misleading, and I was just about to add this source to try to clarify the meaninglessness of the term.
Maybe "early term abortion ban"? Maybe ""Fetal heartbeat law"" with the quote marks present? I think we should have others weigh in on a better name.
Also, a paragraph about the term being misleading was in the lead until someone moved it into the article, but I think there should be a paragraph in the lead explaining this in detail, as we have plenty of sources for that, and we should make that its' own section (with the lead paragraph summarizing that section), and have more than enough sources to do that.---Avatar317(talk) 18:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I understand that it is not always exactly six weeks, but most of the reliable sources seem to mention six weeks as a general figure. I would be okay with "Early term abortion ban", but I don't think this is used much in WP:RS discussing this. So long as we mention in the lede that it isn't always exactly six weeks, I think the current title is okay. I don't think having the quotation marks around the term would be good either. Sorry to be bold about moving this page, but the title it was at was unduly POV, as evidenced by all the style guides I can see (news and medical) advising against the term. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The title need not be reflecting NPOV, or be technically precise if it is a common name (in fact, many of the states that attempt to introduce the bills label them the "heartbeat" bills, even if somewhat misleading from the medical point of view, but then politicians introducing them couldn't care less about the medical best practices). I mean, you can try to show that the new title is indeed the best title but I think this change should have been debated first by formally opening a move discussion. I am willing to hear all arguments, but the previous title was not bad, and, most importantly, the title was distinctive. When I see the current one, the first thing that I think of is merging this article with the general one on abortion restrictions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The main issue I have with the "heartbeat" title is that it is in direct contradiction with most mainstream news style guides, as well as being incorrect medically. I'm sorry I didn't formally open a move discussion, but I thought that since all the mainstream style guides I found deprecated the use of "heartbeat" terminology, and saw it as promoting the POV of the proposers, plus the fact that this seemed to be the most concise title favored by at least one source, that it was best moving here and discussing as we are now. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I fully agree with Szmenderowiecki. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with the change. This article is about a medical procedure and as such we must attempt to use medical language. Note that the ACOG does not use the term heartbeat language, and that is a very strong source. I agree that a mention of the heartbeat language should be in the lead. If someone wants to start a RfC they could do that, though I don't think it's needed. At any rate the new title is important enough that it should remain while the RfC goes on. Sectionworker (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Another suggestion: "early pregnancy abortion bans" ---Avatar317(talk) 05:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What sources do you have for that? Sectionworker (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the source that gave me the idea: [9] : "Most of the new laws — known as early abortion bans — explicitly outlaw abortion when performed after a certain point early in the pregnancy. The laws vary, with some forbidding abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, and some after eight weeks." - when I have time I'll see how many other sources use the same terminology. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'm very happy with "early pregnancy abortion bans" as a title. Definitely an improvement on the current one QueenofBithynia (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have found "early abortion bans" being used by The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The New York Times and Reuters and others; "early pregnancy abortion bans" has been used by CNN, Pew Charitable Trusts, Vox, Forbes and others. Doesn't seem to be as common as the current title, but is more accurate and preferable (in my opinion), has currency in reliable sources, and is not deprecated by any style guide (as far as I know). QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this change as well. It certainly is more accurate. Sectionworker (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree that medical language is most appropriate to use, but it seems there is an effort to steer the conversation away from the obvious, which is not so easy a debate, but when does life begin? Actuarials determining age for life insurance count the time in utero as life. If you apply for life insurance, you may be surprised to learn you are actually one year older than what you think.GoWithChrist (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abbeeee (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Abbeeee (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The bill passed by Florida senate

Someone please update the state tables in light of the recent news [10]. --Mhhossein talk 07:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heartbeat_bill/Archive_1&oldid=1217423712"