Template talk:Abortion map of the United States

Month-Day-Year for the 'as of' date, or Month-Year for the 'as of' date? Which format?

I have changed the format for the as of date from Month-Year to Month-Day-Year because U.S. state abortion laws have been changing daily and might continue to change daily or weekly for several months (or possibly late into this year or next). Adding the day reflects these rapid changes. If someone has reason to believe keeping it at Month-Year is a better idea, I would be interested in learning reasons for that instead.

Brom20110101 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I think for right now, since things are changing so rapidly across the country, keeping the date is a good idea. Svenskbygderna (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The date's fine, but an automated one is bullshit. When I got here today, it said that the map had been updated through today, which it had not been. We need to fill in the date manually, and then only if we actually update the map.

Also reverted to the original wording of the legend. We shouldn't have two different things the same color. If you want to add a color for 'unclear', that's fine, but 'unclear legality' is not the same as 'clear legality but unavailable'. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. After your edit, I gave it some thought. Automating might not be appropriate since there might be weeks where people are updating every two or three days, instead of multiple times every single day. Brom20110101 (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Updating the date

Do we want to update the 'as of' date when a state color changes or when the map is updated (for any reason) on the Commons? What is the reasoning for one way or the other? Brom20110101 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I assumed it was the date of our data, 'as of [date]', whether that's a Guttmacher update that we copied over (even if it resulted in no change) or a change in status we got from some other source. I don't see the point in changing the date because we adjusted the colors, or caught an old error that predates the 'as of' date. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense, thinking it through, I'll plan on updating 'as of' date whenever a legal change occurs that causes a corresponding map change on Commons Brom20110101 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would also make sense to update the 'as of' date when an update of Guttmacher comes out, even when that doesn't result in any changes. It's still up-to-date as of that date. — kwami (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Mucking up mouseover

I'm not all that familiar with making templates or I'd try to fix it myself, but I noticed that in both mousing over the wikilinks to Abortion in the United States and Abortion law in the United States by state where this template is placed at the top of the page, part of the template's transclusion is shown in the popup rather than the (initial) paragraphs proceeding the template on those pages. Anderjef (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Legality . . . and availability?

Wouldn't it be more consistent to either

A. Change North Dakota to dark blue, Guam to pink, and remove references to availability next to gray in the key, or B. Change the subtitle to account for both legislation and availability, and separate "legally unclear" from "Legal but no providers"

? 2603:6010:8100:F602:D091:7B59:80D8:FDEB (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

There are no providers in Wisconsin, so whether or not it is legal is rather beside the point. It's "(legal or legally unclear) [but] no providers."

Also, we don't know the situation in Guam. Someone's been changing the map, but without confirming sources, so I've been reverting them until they provide some (or update the WP article). — kwami (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

As I've replied to you multiple times: The sources were in the Abortion law in the United States by state article. I have now updated the Abortion in Guam article to match. --Jfruh (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for finally doing that. The problem however is that that provision, a restraining order sought by those two doctors, has been overruled and the original law is set to go into force today: Women must see a consulting doctor in person. (See the NYT Aug 2 article "Federal Appeals Court Further Limits Abortion Access on Guam".) AFAICT there is no doctor they can go to. We do however have several references that clinics refuse to refer women to doctors who can provide abortions. So, once again, Guam should be grey until we can verify that there is such a doctor. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It's beside the point if you're seeking an abortion, but not if you're, say, an activist, or an abortionist considering where to set up shop. My understanding is that this template is meant to be used for more than one purpose.

My point is that the description specifies "the current legal status," which is not consistent with the template-wide singular reference to availability next to the gray square. I'm advocating fixing this by leaving availability out of the template, which would only entail creating a new color for Guam's 13-week limit and changing the grey square to simply say "Legally unclear."

The alternative solution is to change the description to account for showing availability, but this map already has a lot of information jammed into it. Also, while legal status is usually statewide, availability is not, so to accurately show how far women in sparsely populated areas would need to go, those areas would need to be largely gray, with dots of other colours representing individual clinics. It would require far more research and far more editing, and make it harder to understand, so I don't think this is the way to go. Perhaps someone could create a second template for availability. 2603:6010:8201:F2DC:D016:4A16:E983:FC44 (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Has this been updated?

Availability is irrelevant on a map defined as "Legal Status" in its description box. Pimprncess (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Immediate danger and mother’s physical health

@KwamiKagami: [1] This would shorten the hatnote. The first sentence has neither a wikilink or source. It’s the first exception.207.96.32.81 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleting the note would shorten it even more. We don't delete info just to make things short. — kwami (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you see the addition “All states including but not limited to”? No information was removed.207.96.32.81 (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's gibberish. What's it supposed to mean? — kwami (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It means close to “All states in particular” the listed states. I won’t say it’s gibberish - It’s a common phrase in legal-speak - https://english.stackexchange.com/a/188904 207.96.32.81 (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I would've reverted for that alone, because it's not what we go on to list (it is a comprehensive list according to our sources), but my main objection was the deletion of any mention of the death of the mother. — kwami (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The listed states have only one exception. My edit clarifies that the first sentence is the first exception which all states have."risk to mother's physical health" is mother's life. It can be changed to [[Complications_of_pregnancy|risk to mother's life]] from [[Complications_of_pregnancy|risk to mother's physical health]]. Both convey the same meaning. Would you want a second opinion? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Health and life aren't the same thing. All states allow exceptions for risk to life. Not all allow exceptions for risk to health. — kwami (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

ok, I looked at https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-abortion-bans. The first sentence can be shortened to "All states make exception for mother's life" or "All states make exception for risk to mother's life". It follows the style of the other exceptions though there is no wikilink. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we used to say it like that, but someone changed it because in practice it's only if her life is in immediate danger that the 'life' exception is accepted. — kwami (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that's why I made the copyedit because the wording was out of place. Is that applicable to all states? It seems a bit wp:or to imply a claim without a source. On second look, the verb should be "have" not "make" and "exceptions" should be "exception" in a few sentences. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Who says there's no source? There's a history of discussion on this.

It's hard to get exact limits because these laws are still new. But there have now been several cases where a woman was denied an abortion even though her life was in danger because she wasn't actually dying and so there was no emergency to trigger what was supposed to be an emergency exemption. AFAIK all states allow at least that much. — kwami (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I would give the law some benefit and stick to the source I provided. The relevant discussion is here. The change from threat to risk was minimal. Is there an RFC I missed? Would you be fine with the other changes I mentioned on "make" and "exceptions"?207.96.32.81 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with "All states make an exception for the mother's life". I believe that was my wording at one point. Just letting you know that's what we used to say and whoever changed it had reason, as well as the acceptance of the others monitoring this template. — kwami (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. The template may not be viewed as often as the articles. Seeing that the template is the only place with the wording, I encourage a further discussion here on if we should apply that to all the states or a few states who apply "mother's life" differently.207.96.32.81 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That would probably be OR. I don't know how we'd determine it. — kwami (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you wikilink mother's life in the original? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

What would we link to? — kwami (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking self-defense or right of self-defense but that may not be intended. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed the word "exception" to "allowance". These are not an exception to the ban on elective abortion, as these are not elective, but allowances for abortion for medical or criminal reasons. (An "exception" would be if e.g. the ban did not apply to you because abortion was allowed by your religion or because you had resided in the state for less than 90 days.) — kwami (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)